Hi 
Wm 



ggjjfijjfcab': 






4H 



HmbBbh 



H 



S& 



wSBMm 



mm 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

: 

ilptp §omrti$ Ifo. 

Shelf _.:.P..4 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



PRINCIPLES 



OF 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT 

WITH SPECIAL APPLICATION 

TO THE 

POLITY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM, 

AND 

A PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE GENERAL 

CONFERENCE INTO TWO DISTINCT, SEPARATE, 

AND CONCURRENT HOUSES. 

BY THE LATE 

WILLIAM H.'PERRINE, D.D. 



ARRANGED AND EDITED, 

WITH A LIFE STORY AND A REVIEW OF THE LAY DELE- 
GATION MOVEMENT IN THE METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 

JBy JAMES H. POTTS, ID.ID. 



NEW YORK: PHILLIPS &> HU. 
CINCINNA TI: CRANSTON &> STOW a 
1887. 




THB LIBHAEY 
OF CONGRESS] 

WASHIWGTOWj 






Copyright, 1887, °y 

PHILLIPS & HUNT, 

New York. 



My sole aim is to excite those who have the welfare of the Church 
at heart to unite their endeavors in opposing the fatal tendencies of 
centralization of power in the General Conference. 

If that evil day is delayed it will be because we shall clearly descry 
that distribution of power essential to liberty built up over against the 
ramparts of a mighty executive, and so perfect a judicatory as to 
hold both the legislative and the executive to the strictest construc- 
tion of their respective responsibilities. Truth will ever be unpalata- 
ble only to those who are determined not to relinquish error, but can 
never give offense to honest minds. — Dr. Perrixe. 



PREFACE. 



Dr. Perrine was fond of quoting from Milton the line, 

" Heaven's high behest no preface needs," 

and so far as the subject-matter and purpose of his 
writings are concerned the same is true. But our rela- 
tion to these writings requires a word of explanation. 

With Dr. Perrine, as with many other great men, the 
ruling passion was strong in death. One of his last 
requests was that his papers on lay representation and 
kindred themes might be gathered up and published to 
the world. Mrs. Perrine intended to fulfill this sacred 
injunction. She was familiar with her husband's writ- 
ings, and in hearty sympathy with all his literary 
efforts; but long absence in the West, and attendance 
upon other duties, interfered with her cherished plans. 
She then requested the undersigned to undertake the 
work of editing these papers for the press. 

Only the most profound reverence for the memory of 
Dr. Perrine, and the mo<t absolute conviction that he 
Avas sound in the majority of his views, induced us, in the 
midst of our multifarious duties, to undertake the task. 

Some difficulty has attended the labor. From the 
very necessity of the case Dr. Perrine was a controver- 
sialist. He contended for the supremacy of a strongly 
disputed principle. He antagonized the positions of 
some of the best writers and speakers in the Church, 
lie sounded their views to the bottom. His treatment 
of a question was never superficial, but always deep and 
thorough. He went back to first principles, and inva- 
riably submitted the reasons for the faith that was in 



6 Preface. 

him. He shrank from contact with no opponent, how- 
ever great or good or popular. Always respectful, and 
frequently complimentary, he nevertheless treated his 
opponents' ideas strictly on their merits, and, when oc- 
casion required, hesitated not to crush down those ideas 
with invincible logic, and exhibit their worthlessness by 
the most scathing rhetoric. Instances of this character- 
istic will be found in the body of this book, although, 
for obvious reasons, many of the controversial features 
and personal allusions have been omitted. 

There was a consistency of word and act in Dr. Per- 
rine's entire public career which few appreciate,but which 
this volume will, we trust, in some measure indicate. 

The plan of the book is apparent. The first three 
chapters are by the editor ; all remaining chapters, 
foot-notes, incidental editing and arrangement excepted, 
are by Dr. Perrine. 

Believing that the principles of our author are in the 
main correct, and that if practically approved by the 
Church the}' will prevent much unwise legislation, save 
us from many embarrassments, and enshrine the name 
of our lamented dead in the hearts and hopes of on- 
coming generations, we most respectfully submit this 
volume to the attention of thinking people. 

James H. Potts. 

After a careful examination of the manuscript of this 
book I desire to express my high appreciation of the work 
of its editor, who has successfully overcome the difficul- 
ties of its compilation. I would present to him my most 
grateful acknowledgments for the painstaking care and 
the marked ability he has brought to the work. To the 
Great Disposer of events I would render thanksgiving for 
the providence which has thus opened the way for the 
presentation to the Church of principles which seem to me 
vital to its highest interests. Livonia B. Perrine. 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter Page 

I. The Life Story 9 

II. The Lay Delegation Movement 35 

III. The Doctrine of the Priesthood of the People. ... 84 

IV. The Special Divine Call to the Ministry 98 

V. The Special Commission to Govern 106 

VI. The Twelve Apostles Especially Commissioned 122 

VII. The Special Commission Conveyed to the Ordained 

Preaching Elders 129 

VIII. The " Wesleyan Axiom." 139 

IX. The Things Forbidden to the Governors of the 

Church 149 

X. The Optional in Church Government 162 

XI. Governmental Maxims 177 

XII. The Constitution to be Guarded 193 

XIII. Injudicious Legislation to be Avoided 223 

XIV. The Important Interests to be Protected 232 

XV. The Division of Labor Principle 241 

XVI. Harmony and Unity to be Restored 245 



8 Contents. 

Chapter Page 

XYII. The New Testament Church to be Exemplified. . . . 258 

XVIH. General Conference Re-organization— Comparative 

Tables. 211 

XIX. Remarks on the Foregoing Tables 288 

XX. Objections to the Two-House Principle 299 

XXI. Plan for Two Houses 304 

XXII. Two Houses— Dates of Origin 313 



PRINCIPLES 



OP 



CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 



CHAPTER I. 

THE LIFE STORY. 



" Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have 
greatness thrust upon 'era.'' 

Rev. William H. Perrine, D.D., belonged to that 
class which achieves greatness. Under God he mapped 
out his own successful career, and with undaunted 
heart steadfastly pursued his purpose until summoned 
to a higher world. Yet he was well born. He traced 
his lineage back to the Huguenots of France who, at 
the revocation of the edict of Nantes, braved the perils 
of the deep to find an asylum in America, where free- 
dom from persecution and true liberty could be en- 
joyed. His ancestor, Pierre Perrine, emigrated with 
two sons, Henry and Daniel, in 1685, embarking with 
other refugees at Rochelle, France, in the ship Cal- 
edonia, which was wrecked and beached upon the 
south-east corner of Staten Island. While yet upon 
shipboard the refugees entered into a solemn covenant 
that they and their children to the latest generation 



10 Principles of Church Government. 

should be the Lord's. Two young brothers, mere chil- 
dren, were brought ashore in one garment. From these 
brothers were descended a long line of distinguished 
Presbyterians. William Henry was of the seventh gen- 
eration. The family had centered about Monmouth, 
"N. J., and had numerous representatives in the minis- 
try, and in honored positions in collegiate and civil life. 
During the revolutionary struggle these all identified 
themselves firmly and conspicuously with the cause of 
liberty, and one of the decisive battles of the Revolution 
was fought on the premises of his grandfather, John 
Perrine, of Monmouth. In 1798 his family removed to 
Lyons, N. Y., where William Henry was born, October 
8, 1827. In 1833 the family migrated to Michigan, 
settling in Sandstone, Jackson County. His parents 
were Presbyterians. When William was once asked 
how it transpired that he was a Methodist when he had 
such an heroic Calvinistic ancestry, he replied, "Be- 
cause, doubtless, it was so ordained." 

The family was large, he having eight brothers and 
four sisters. It was also poor, and its members endured 
all the hardships of pioneer life. William early mani- 
fested the intellectual bent which afterward gave him 
such distinction. His career of self-application, self- 
help, and self-mastery began in childhood. At eleven 
he was a close student, though compelled to prosecute 
his studies under great disadvantages. He is said to 
have borrowed many books and read them eagerly by 
firelight, so determined was he to store his mind with 
knowledge. At the age of nineteen he matriculated at 
Hillsdale College, and graduated from that institution 



The Life Stoky. 11 

in 1853. He once told us something of how he fared 
while prosecuting his studies at college. Often his 
only repast was " cold biscuit and cheese," but his 
mind was feasting on higher food. The indomitable 
powers of his great soul enabled him to surmount all 
obstacles, endure all privations, and win an educational 
victory at any cost. By teaching school, and other em- 
ployments, he earned sufficient money to pay absolutely 
necessary expenses. Yet he kept pace in his studies 
with his more favored school-mates, and graduated in 
regular order with his class. 

His religious training, of course, had been carefully 
attended to. From a child he had known the Holy 
Scriptures and had learned to fear God. At the age of 
thirteen he was deeply convicted of his sinful state and 
earnestly sought pardon. His conversion was clear and 
thorough. He at once united with the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. Then came a struggle. He immediately 
felt that God had called him to the work of the minis- 
try, but his strong proclivity for artistic pursuits seemed 
to lead in another direction. Conscience triumphed. 
In 1851, while yet a college student, he was licensed to 
preach, joined the Michigan Annual Conference, and 
was stationed at South Albion. In 1852 he was ap- 
pointed to Parma, but preached in Jackson while the 
regular pastor. Rev. 8. Clements, was engaged in col- 
lecting funds to pay a debt npon the church. About 
this time he became impressed that he should go as a 
missionary to Africa, and asked his brethren to hold 
him for that field ; but the way appeared not to open, 
and he finally relinquished the thought. During all his 



12 Principles op Church Government. 

young manhood he was the subject of strong impres- 
sions and impulses, which his friends could dis- 
lodge only with much difficulty, and he always re- 
tained a sense of divine sanction upon all his labors 
and plans. 

His early ministry was in demonstration of the Spirit 
and with power. He prepared his sermons with much 
care, studied deeply the meaning of every word, 
searched earnestly for the most vigorous and striking 
thought, and made all his pulpit efforts glow with the 
enthusiasm of his own soul. 

His round of appointments stood as follows: 1854-55, 
Lafayette Street, Detroit; 1856-57, Adrian; 1858, trip 
to Palestine and Jerusalem; 1859, Ann Arbor; 1860-61, 
superannuated; 1862-63, Flint; 1864-67, Professor of 
Natural Science and Painting in Albion College ; 1868, 
trip to Europe; 1868-69, Central Church, Lansing; 
1870, presiding elder of Lansing District; 1871-73, 
Professor of History and Belles-lettres in Albion Col- 
lege; 1874, St. Joseph; 1875-77, Albion; 1878, Ma- 
rengo; 1879, Parma; 1880, Concord. 

At Adrian, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, and Lansing 
he labored especially hard, and witnessed abundant 
spiritual fruit. During these years he advanced rapidly 
in pulpit power and in the graces of the divine life. In 
October, 1854, he married Miss Livonia E. Benedict, a 
lady of rare culture, worth, and refinement, who proved 
a devoted and accomplished wife, a helpful companion 
in study, and a warm sympathizer with him in all his 
subsequent labors and aims. During several years she 
filled the chair of languages and mathematics, and 



The Life Story. 13 

acted as preceptress in Albion College with marked 
ability. 

Five children blessed this marriage union, all daugh- 
ters. One, Mary Blanche, died at the age of two years. 
The eldest, Lura L., who graduated from the classical 
course of Albion College in 1880, resides with her 
mother at Medbery, Dakota, and is teaching near their 
home. The second, Clara B., a lady of rare intellectual 
gifts, was an invalid for several years from overstudy, 
but was slowly regaining health when her father died. 
Very soon after she became insane and was taken to 
the asylum at Kalamazoo, where she still remains. The 
third, Florence M., is a bright young lady, and a grad- 
uate from the classical course of Albion College, class 
of 1887. The youngest, Edith L., a sweet girl of per- 
haps nineteen years, is with her mother, and pursuing 
her studies under the direction of her accomplished sis- 
ter Lura. 

Nothing can exceed in loveliness the home life of Dr. 
Perrine. In all his private and domestic relations he 
was most true and tender, affectionate and generous. 
He never was untrue to a friend, and never forgot a 
kindness shown to him. His life was pure, his conduct 
blameless. LTnselfish, great-hearted, he took his friends 
into his sympathies and love, and there was an inner 
circle of fellowship which in fidelity and warmth cannot 
be excelled on this earth. 

Some good men called him " erratic." Possibly in 
some things he was. As Rev. Dr. D. F. Barnes says: 

" I have been his pastor, and for years lived his neigh- 
bor. I have traveled with him. We have been room- 



14 Principles of Chukch Government. 

mates and bed-fellows for six weeks. I have never 
found any one more unselfish, and of a more generous 
nature. He was a man of excellent thought and great 
research, of strong faith and most noble and generous 
impulses. He was an indefatigable worker. Indeed, 
in my judgment, his greatest fault was in trying to do 
too much. I have freely conversed with him on those 
points which seemed to me points of failure. Had he 
undertaken less, had he concentrated more, he would 
have excelled as a successful teacher, or as the great 
and eloquent winner of souls. He undertook so many 
things that the great soul was burdened. This a soul 
less noble, perhaps, could not have done. Once as we 
roomed together, at a district meeting, speaking of 
places for the next General Conference, I suggested 
that we might not live to see that time. He replied, 
1 1 shall if God has use for me. Of that I give myself 
no concern.' " 

Dr. Perrine was very appreciative of any thing said 
or done in his behalf. The heartiest thanks we ever 
received from any man came from him after we 
had written a word of commendation of his plans 
for the church. Never shall we forget the earnest, 
firmly-spoken " God bless you " which came from his 
lips as he grasped our hand and drew us closely to 
himself. 

It was so in all his work. When in the pastorate he 
acted upon the principle that those who did the most, 
sacrificed the most, were most faithful under all circum- 
stances, deserved the largest benefits and blessings. 
Once he said to a friend, " When I have a stormy Sun- 



The Life Story. 15 

day, and but few at church, I give them the best I have. 
I say to myself: If this people will leave their homes 
and come out to hear me preach such a day as this they 
shall have something worth while, if I have got it; and 
I always ask God to help me do my best. 

" While laboring always to do his duty, his work was 
never cold or perfunctory in execution, but always in- 
spired by warm love for his race. He possessed in large 
measure that ' enthusiasm for humanity' which the 
author of Ecce Homo points out as the distinguishing 
characteristic of the Master whom Dr. Perrine delighted 
to follow. He desired all good and noble things for 
his race, and was willing to spend time, labor, all he 
had, in its service; we have no doubt whatever that 
this self-devotion would have reached the point of mar- 
tyrdom had such demand existed in our time." 

In doctrinal belief Dr. Perrine was thoroughly ortho- 
dox. He felt that there are some truths which must be 
believed. In respect to them faith is not optional. 
They are fundamental, vital, and essential to salvation. 
He was perfectly familiar, too, with these fundamentals. 
He well knew when they were encroached upon. He 
could scent heresy as keenly and scourge it as merci- 
lessly as any man then living. He could not tolerate 
what are termed progressive views in regard to inspira- 
tion, the atonement, prayer, the resurrection, etc. With 
Longfellow he believed that — 

" The sin of heresy is a deadly sin, 
'Tis like the falling of the snow, whose crystals 
The traveler plays with, thoughtless of his danger, 
Until he sees the air so full of light 



16 Principles of Church Government. 

That it is dark; and blindly staggering onward, 
Lost, and bewildered, he sits down to rest; 
There falls a pleasant drowsiness upon him, 
And what he thinks is sleep, alas I is death." 

In his preaching Dr. Perrine gave due prominence to 
the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and seemed to 
preach with eternity in view. He constantly inculcated 
the necessity and privilege of a complete consecration, 
and urged upon believers the acceptance of all the ten 
thousand blessings which God has in store for them. 
He was magnified constantly by his conception of the 
exalted sphere and privilege of a minister of Christ, and 
never lowered the true dignity of the sacred office by 
word or deed. 

Dr. Perrine was one of the most unsuspecting and 
confiding of men. He seemed utterly unconscious that 
any interest of another could come in competition with 
his own. To him all virtuous society was an Eden of 
innocence, and his own deportment and conversation 
ever tended to keep it pure and charitable. He was 
the friend of youth, taking especial interest in young 
ministers, and never failing to impress them with his 
own moral excellence and kindness of heart. Rev. M. 
W. Darling, of the Congregational Church, who long 
knew him as a student and as associate in the faculty 
of Albion College, pays him the following tribute: 
" To me, as to all who knew him intimately, his death 
comes like that of an own brother. How I remember 
his tenderness in dealing with the erring ; his forgiving 
spirit; his sympathetic heart for all! In the higher 
qualities of Christian character he was full. Whatever 



The Life Story. 17 

his faults, they were not faults in respect to obedience 
to God and charity to men. In these he was truly a 
Christ-like man. In some difficult cases of discipline 
in the college I well remember his remark, and have 
ever since tried to profit by it : ' There are two ways 
of managing human nature — one is to drive; the other 
is to lead. My way is to lead.' Then started the sym- 
pathetic tear. In the highest qualities of Christ-like 
character he was peer among the noblest of mankind." 

Dr. Perrine was a lover of the beautiful, both in 
nature and art. His aesthetic tastes and strong natural 
devotion to artistic pursuits, together with his thorough 
collegiate training, eminently qualified him for his work 
as a professor in Albion College. The fact that he filled 
acceptably at different times in that institution the 
chairs of natural science, history, belles-lettres, and art, 
proves the versatility of his talent and the ripeness of 
his culture. During his first professorship in that insti- 
tution he really did double work, because otherwise work 
which seemed to him very important would have been 
left undone, the college being without endowment and 
in debt. To the chair of natural science he voluntarily 
added the department of painting. He also taught elo- 
cution, and devoted much time to the individual instruc- 
tion and training of students in what seemed to him 
the best methods of oratorical composition. 

His visit to the Holy Land gave a strong and event- 
ful bias to his studies and life-work. The late Rev. Dr. 
J. M. Arnold, describing it, said: "His ardent soul 
drank in the artistic and aesthetic treasures of Europe, 

and the natural beauties and glories of the land whose 
2 



18 Principles of Church Government. 

imagery glows upon the sacred page, which poured it- 
self forth in entrancing description upon his return. 
He spent two years in lecturing, with a view of securing 
the means to return to Europe and complete his arrange- 
ments for a magnificent ' Landscape View of Palestine,' 
the conception of which had already crystallized in 
his own soul and was rapidly assuming form and 
shape." 

His earliest achievement in this direction was a pan- 
orama covering several thousand feet of canvas, painted 
by Mr. Wheeler, a Michigan artist, from sketches made 
by Mr. Perrine and from photographs obtained by 
him. After a shipwreck, while crossing Lake Michigan 
in 1861, very many of the views were repainted by Mr. 
Perrine. Upon this panorama, glowing with reality, 
Dr. Perrine gave such lectures as only he could give. 
There have been more highly endowed orators and 
more pleasing speakers, but Dr. Perrine's lectures 
upon the Holy Land were pervaded by a minuteness 
of detail, a thorough grasp of the whole subject in 
all its bearings, and a religious awe and sublimity 
which, so far as our information extends, has never been 
excelled. 

" But he justly regarded his * General Landscape View 
of Palestine' as the greatest achievement of his life, 
apart from his personal agency in leading men to Christ. 
Upon that he spent nine years of labor and about six 
thousand dollars. He personally took sketches of the 
entire country. These he combined with remarkable 
and unequaled symmetry in a landscape view, which 
he reduced by about thirty distinct repaintings to its 



The Life Story. 19 

final cast. In 1868 he went to Europe, and arranged 
in Berlin for the publication of this ehromo by Stoich 
and Kramer. As a work of art it is unquestionably 
meritorious. The highest indorsement of its correct- 
ness and penetrating force of representation have been 
given by such men as Kenan, Dore, Dean Stanley, Drs. 
Strong, Gage, Duffield, and McClintock, with a multi- 
tude of others. But financially it was a failure, and 
involved him in a life-long struggle with debt and anxi- 
ety. If he could conscientiously have given his time 
to its introduction, there is little doubt that it would 
have proved lucrative; but he could not be induced to 
leave the ministry. It is said to have about cleared its 
cost, and there is still a fortune in it if properly han- 
dled." 

AVhen this striking and beautiful picture was being 
introduced, we remember to have seen enthusiastic de- 
scriptions of it in the religious press. Those who had 
culture to appreciate it praised it most highly. " Would 
you like to see how the land looks in which Jesus 
lived?" inquired one addressing Sunday-school read- 
ers. "Would you not enjoy a sail along its shores 
from Joppa to Sidon ? I think most of you would. 
But, then, you cannot do that for lack of that im- 
portant thing called an 'opportunity.' Yet there 
is a wny in which you can get a view of that Holy 
Land just as it looks to those who do take such a sail. 
It is by getting your teachers to hang up Profes- 
sor Perrine's 'General Landscape View of Palestine' 
in your Sunday-school. It is a beautifully executed 
chromotype, and shows the entire Holy Land in per- 



20 Principles of Church Government. 

spective. There is nothing else like it in the world 
of art." 

So thoroughly was the entire landscape view of Pal- 
estine written upon this artist's own soul that he could 
reproduce it at will and without the slightest hesitation 
with an ordinary pencil or brush upon any wall or can- 
vas large enough to receive it. Several churches in 
which he ministered contain copies from his own hand, 
and he executed a beautiful design in mammoth size for 
his own use in lecturing. 

Several of our prominent Sunday-school assembly 
resorts also contain invaluable results in models of 
his Palestine reproduced. Island Park boasts the finest 
model of the Holy Land in the world, but Dr. Perrine 
made it at his home in Albion. Mr. Jewell S. Albright, 
superintendent of models for the park, says : " The 
model exhibits the painstaking accuracy of the scien- 
tist and the delicate taste of the artist. Hint Dr. Per- 
rine was both scientist and artist this beautiful model 
abundantly proves. The student here finds every de- 
lineation of the detailed features of the Holy Land 
perfectly reliable. The traveler who comes to ex- 
amine it is constantly delighted to find his recollec- 
tions of the minutest observations in travel faithfully 
reproduced. It is constructed upon a horizontal scale 
of fifteen miles to the foot, and a vertical scale of one 
thousand feet to the inch. The material is plaster of 
Paris ; it is colored to nature in dry color upon a sizing 
of glue." 

Dr. Perrine executed several other creditable works 
of art. He attempted several copies from the old 



The Life Story. 21 

masters. Just before his death he had planned for 
Island Park Assembly a large model building, so ar- 
ranged as to contain eight models of Bible lands and 
cities. His model of Palestine was the beginning of 
this comprehensive apparatus. The second, the model 
of Jerusalem, was to have been executed the year of 
his death. The entire series were to be set, in a suit- 
able building, upon railway tracks centering upon a 
turn-table, around which the spectators were to be 
seated ns in an amphitheater. It was certainly a grand 
conception. 

His enthusiasm in all art studies knew no bounds. 
His soul was thrilled with a sublime rapture as he 
studied the architecture, paintings, and sculpture of the 
Old World, and he had gone as far as his means would 
allow in the literature of the subject. His lecture upon 
" The Christian in Art " was a most grand and truthful 
presentation of his conceptions and views of the aesthetic 
in the past, present, and future of the Christian 
religion. 

Under his masterly supervision the Art Department 
of Albion College, although lacking many of the facili- 
ties usually considered requisite in such a field, sprang 
into great usefulness and promise as an auxiliary to 
the institution designed to turn out thoroughly edu- 
cated young men and women for greater efficiency in 
the various callings of life. His travels and studies in 
Europe enabled him to impart invaluable instruction, 
especially to those who could not themselves enjoy the 
privilege of extended travel supplementary to their 
collegiate course. 



22 Principles of Chuech Goveenment. 

One says of him, however, that " as a teacher he 
lacked that consecutive attention to barren details 
which constitutes the perfection of the modern educa- 
tional tread-mill. It was nut uncommon for him to fire 
up with enthusiasm, and spend nearly the whole hour of 
recitation in general questions related to morals and to 
the grander achievements of mankind. But what was 
lacking in drill was more than compensated in the 
higher philosophic impulse which he communicated to 
his pupils, and in the moral principles which he in- 
stilled." 

In 1871, after he had severed his connection with 
Albion College, that institution conferred upon him the 
degree of doctor in divinity, a distinction which he 
most worthily bore, and in conferring which the college 
did itself a high honor. 

Intellectually Dr. Perrine had few peers in his pro- 
fession. Added to his aesthetic taste, his fertile and 
strong imagination, were the noble traits of high aspi- 
rations and an indomitable will. " His religious char- 
acter centered in an intense consciousness of God and 
firm loyalty to truth and duty. Prayer with him was 
intercourse with God, and its province embraced all his 
interests, temporal and spiritual. He had an implicit 
faith in the Gospel as an agency for the world's reno- 
vation, and to him its future mission embraced all hu- 
man progress, and stretched far into the ages to come. 
To him all truth was divine truth, all science the sci- 
ence of God. He recognized a primitive divine impulse 
in all human achievement, and esteemed it his most ex- 
alted mission to incorporate divine truth with the 



The Life Story. 23 

advancing tide of human progress. All his artistic 
studies and labors were a devout tribute to the Gospel 
of Christ." 

Dr. Perrine was actively engaged in pastoral work 
when overtaken by his fatal illness. His latter appoint- 
ments, in the vicinity of Albion, were given him in con- 
sequence of the long-continued illness of one of his 
daughters. She could not safely be moved from place 
to place, and so the devoted father continued his min- 
isterial labors on less important charges that he might 
dwell with his family in his own home in Albion. 
Until within a week of his death, which occurred Jan- 
uary 22, 1881, his health appeared to be as good 'as 
usual. Pleuro-pneumonia suddenly snatched him away 
when but fifty-three years of age. His funeral from 
the Methodist Episcopal Church at Albion was attended 
by an immense throng of people. The services were, 
by special request of the deceased, in charge of Rev. 
Dr. L. R. Fiske, president of Albion College. About 
twenty-five of his clerical brethren of Michigan Confer- 
ence were in attendance. He had expressed a desire to 
be borne to his rest by these partners of his toil and 
triumphs. At the residence prayer was offered by Dr. 
Fiske. The remains, which wore a calm, natural ex- 
pression, were then conveyed to the church, where the 
services were introduced by the reading of 1 Cor. xv, 
37-58, by Rev. T. H. Jacokes. The choir sang " Rock 
of Ages." Rev. H. Hall led in prayer. After the an- 
them, " Remember mercy, O God," President Fiske 
gave a brief biographical sketch of the deceased, and 
said : 



24 Principles of Church Government. 

" Dr. Perrine has filled many of the most responsible 
appointments in the State, and given seven years of 
successful labor to Albion College, where he will be 
affectionately remembered. He took a deep interest in 
David Preston's scheme for endowing the college, and 
contributed much to its success. In his death the 
cause of Christian education has lost one of its best 
friends. He went to Palestine, studying the land and 
its story, that he might better understand and teach 
the word of God. He was a member of the General 
Conference in 1872, 1876, and 1880, and was efficient. 
Among the strongest of his personal traits may be 
designated : 

u 1. Yery positive convictions of truth, right, and 
duty. 

" 2. He never consulted expediency, and was not 
afraid to express his convictions. 

" 3. He was sanguine and enthusiastic. He believed 
with his whole heart, and threw his whole soul into 
what he believed. 

" 4. His heart and sympathies flowed out in his con- 
victions. He had a large heart, and his intellectual 
earnestness did not dry up his sympathies. 

" 5. He was eminently religious, and we may say in- 
tellectually religious. He rested every thing upon the 
Bible and upon Christ. With him there was no chasm 
between nature and God. Religious exercises were his 
delight. His imaginative intellect, which clothed every 
thing with beauty, was quickened and irradiated by the 
Holy Spirit." 

Dr. Fiske closed by reading a few sentences from the 



The Life Stoky. 25 

pen of Mrs. Perrine relating to her husband's last 
hours : 

" Thursday morning, after lying several hours near 
death, as it seemed (although perfectly conscious), he 
said : ' I have been looking into heaven. I seemed to 
be standing on the frontier of the universe. I wish I 
could tell you what I saw. On one side was heaven ; 
on the other the universe, shadowed, but across the 
shadows were beams of light.' And he repeated pas- 
sage after passage which he saw upon these beams, 
embodying the great truths of the Gospel. He ex- 
claimed: 'The door between heaven and me was very 
thin. But I think I shall live, and I shall be more 
earnest in my Master's work. Nothing pays except 
what we do for the Lord. It is a great thing to enter 
heaven.' 

"Saturday morning, when he found himself again 
sinking, he dictated in perfect composure messages to 
absent friends, and gave his last words of counsel and 
love to his wife and daughters. He then said : ' I have 
no unkind feelings toward any of my brethren of the 
Conference, toward any of the bishops, or editors, 
or official brethren of the Church.' When asked if 
there was any darkness, his face lighting up with 
b°ly j°y> ne sa ^ with great emphasis: ' 0, no! I 
have a right to heaven!' Then he added: 'I am 
the vilest of sinners, and in myself have no right; but 
in the merit and grace of Christ I have a right to 
eternal life.' " 

Rev. John Graham followed with a few earnest words 
expressive of his high admiration for Dr. Perrine's 



26 Principles of Church Government. 

character, saying that he would cherish his memory as 
a friend of young men. 

Rev. Isaac Taylor felt that, like Elijah, Dr. Perrine 
had gone to heaven suddenly, leaving his mantle to fall 
upon younger ministers whom he loved so ardently and 
served so well. He was no ordinary man. If his ac- 
quirements, labors, and influence were estimated as re- 
presenting the breadth of a life, he had lived long and 
accomplished much. 

Rev. George S. Hickey pronounced a beautiful and 
impressive eulogy, in the course of which he said : " We 
do not deny that there is a mystery about this death — 
as there is about every death. Our minds and hearts 
are now shadowed as we ask, Why was one endowed 
with such natural and acquired gifts cut down so sud- 
denly in the midst of his years, and under such circum- 
stances of acute pain and agony ? Had it been left for 
us to decide we would have said that we could not yet 
spare him — his genius, talent, culture, and ardent zeal 
for God. Dr. Perrine was cultured without affectation; 
scholarly, but spiritual. He was a man that abhorred 
the very appearance of evil, and cleaved to that which is 
good. His was a pure spirit. His speech was always 
with grace, and dignified. He was a man full of faith 
and of the Holy Ghost. His heroic spirit would have 
dared to die for the truth. He was a man of positive 
views and intense convictions, and he had moral cour- 
age and stamina. He stood firmly on the adamantine 
rock of his own clear convictions, against which the 
turbulent waves of human opinion might dash harm- 
lessly, and foam and break and retire. He was bold, 



The Life Story. 27 

aggressive, persistent, radical. He had opinions of 
his own, and dared to utter them in the face of op- 
position, but cherished the kindest feeling toward 
his opponents. He was in a fair way to 'bring 
things to pass,' which was Bishop Ames's idea of a 
great man." 

Memorial services were held in honor of Dr. Per- 
rine in several localities throughout Michigan, and 
many warmly appreciative allusions were made to his 
character and life in both the secular and religious 
press. 

The Lansing Journal, edited by Hon. George P. 
Sanford, contained a full column of eulogistic matter, of 
which the following is an extract : " Dr. Perrine was one 
of the most widely known and most dearly beloved cler- 
gymen in Michigan. His genial and generous nature 
made him the trusted friend of all who knew him at all 
intimately. He was a man endowed by nature with 
varied and unusual abilities. His native powers had 
been stimulated and cultivated by thorough education, 
extended culture, and profound thought. An alert 
mind, a vivid imagination, a tender yet strong sensi- 
bility, and a ready and copious command of clear, 
strong, and beautiful language made him one of the 
most eloquent orators of the country. His was a most 
rare combination of mental powers. His mind was not 
less massive and strong than brilliant and sentimental. 
A truly eloquent man, he was also exceptionally able 
in debate, and invincible in argument. He forged the 
chain of logic with invincible links of steel in the same 
paragraph in which he showered the flowers of rhetoric 



28 Principles of Church Government. 

and the gems of impassioned eloquence thick as 
leaves of Vallombrosa. A vivid fancy, strong logical 
powers, clear and forcible statement, broad and power- 
ful grasp of thought, varied and accurate learning, and 
profound philosophy made him one of the most thor- 
oughly equipped men of his time." 

A guiding principle of his life was never to seek and 
never to shun responsibility. When a responsibility 
came to him spontaneously he made thorough prepara- 
tion for the discharge of the trust. 

When first elected by the Michigan Conference a 
member of the Board of Trustees of North-western 
University, at Evanstown, in 1856 or '57, in view of his 
inexperience in this line of work he thought the most 
suitable thing for him to do was to make as thorough 
a study as possible of the subject of university endow- 
ments. 

In doing this he found that some of the richest uni- 
versities of the Old World were originally endowed 
with large grants of land of moderate value, which they 
held and rented, and which, finally, by their great in- 
crease in value, yielded immense revenues. 

At the first meeting of the board which Mr. Perrine 
attended he learned that the North-western University 
lands had just been thrown upon the market, and at 
once persuaded a member of the board who had voted 
for the motion to sell to move its reconsideration. 
He then gave the board the results of his studies in 
university endowments, urging the withdrawal of the 
lands from market. 

This was done, and the lands were leased for a long 



The Life Story. 29 

term of years, with the stipulation that at the end of 
every five years they should be subject to revaluation, 
and to a consequent advance in rent. 

Mr. Perrine, who received at the time warm expres- 
sions of approval from members of the board for his 
work, always remembered it with satisfaction, believing 
that he had thereby served the interests of the uni- 
versity. 

Dr. Perrine is best remembered by his work in the 
General Conference. He early interested himself in the 
question of lay representation, studied the subject in 
all its bearings, and being so radical an American in all 
his sentiments and sympathies he determined to con- 
tend for a plan of lay delegation which would harmonize 
with American ideas of government, and at the same 
time conform to the teachings of the word of God. 
His penetrating mind clearly perceived the character 
of the struggle before him. He earnestly believed that 
in order to be perfectly effective the lay element must 
be extricated from that clerical domination which has 
been the very genius of Methodism, and he well knew 
that such extrication would cost him or somebody else 
an herculean effort, liability to failure, and the cer- 
tainty of being misjudged, and perhaps denounced and 
overthrown. Yet he hesitated not. Duty first ; self- 
interest afterward. 

" At first," says Dr. Arnold, " his ' plan ' for a sepa- 
rate house for the laity received a stern repulse, and 
subjected him to a pitiless storm of ridicule. But he 
never faltered, and the Michigan Conference honored 
itself more than can yet be estimated by returning 



30 Principles of Church Government. 

him twice to the arena of conflict. His plan is now 
the property of the Church, and the outcome of the 
last General Conference (that of 1880) riveted the 
conviction that if the laymen cannot rise to legisla- 
tive independence and sense of responsibility in a 
higher degree than at present, lay delegation is utterly 
futile." 

We shall trace the history of the lay delegation 
movement more at length in a succeeding chapter; but 
we wish here to note the progress of Dr. Perrine's ideas 
during the twelve years of his active participation in 
General Conference deliberations and the accompanying 
debates of the Church. 

In 1872, on the motion in the General Conference 
which proved the first signal test of the sentiment of 
that body as to the expediency of two separate, distinct, 
and concurrent houses, Dr. Perrine stood absolutely 
alone. His solitary " Nay " rang out full and clear in 
that Conference room, and we find in his copy of the 
General Conference Journal for that year a leaf turned 
at the page where the vote is recorded, and a hand 
(I3P 3 ) drawn in ink by himself pointing to the fadeless 
record of his immortal No ! 

Similarly, in IS 70, on the twenty-fourth day of the 
session, when he offered a substitute for so much of the 
report on lay delegation as related to the election of 
laymen, providing for the division of the General Con- 
ference into a " Clerical Senate and a House of Lay 
Representative-," he has marked the result of the vote in 
a way to be remembered. But he stood not alone now. 
Many of the noblest minds in that body entertained 



The Life Story. 31 

lis opinions and were prepared to embody them in 
their ballots. On the motion to lay his substitute on 
the table the vote stood 197 for to 90 against. This 
was an encouraging advance, from one to ninety in four 
years. When a leading delegate afterward remarked 
to him, "Of course, Perrine, you are right, but I tell 
them you are the wretchedest leader under the heav- 
ens," Dr. Perrine replied : 

" Doctor, how many supporters had I in Brooklyn 
in 1872, when you and the whole Church stood against 
me ? I am happy to note at least one respectable re- 
tainer. Hereafter I will see that you are respectably 
led." 

In 1880 the question came up again, Dr. Perrine 
leading among its advocates. The plan which he sub- 
mitted is published elsewhere in this volume, and he 
had the satisfaction of seeing a very able committee 
report in favor of the proposed division, and of hearing 
his views advocated by many. The motion to adopt 
resulted as follows: Yeas, 110; nays, 211. The ad- 
vancing popularity of his views will be noted. 

In this connection we may fittingly append Rev. Dr. 
J. M. Buckley's notice of Dr. Perrine and his work, as 
it appeared in the editorial columns of the New York 
Christian Advocate, February 24, 1881. After de- 
ploring the suddenness of Dr. Perrine's departure the 
editor said: 

" We knew Dr. Perrine and highly respected him; nor 
did we conceal that respect until his death. It has been 
our deliberate judgment, often expressed for more than 
fifteen years, that his intellectual powers and acquisi- 



32 Principles of Church Government. 

tions were greater than those of most professional men 
— far greater than were possessed by many who re- 
garded him as much inferior to themselves. During 
a residence in Detroit, from 1863 to 1866, we met him 
frequently, and soon discovered that he had views upon 
almost every subject, and was able to defend them by 
forcible argument and a wide range of facts. A sus- 
ceptibility, a tendency to rhapsody, nppeared in his nat- 
ure, which, fully as much as his abilities and acquire- 
ments, rendered him a marked character among his 
brethren. Whatever theme occupied him absorbed 
him, and he felt that it transcended all others. Grad- 
ually overcoming the prejudice against him as an un- 
practical man, he appeared at the General Conference 
of 1872 profoundly impressed that the Church was 
about to commit a great error in confounding the func- 
tions of the ministry and laity. Dr. Perrine's persist- 
ency led strangers ^o entertain erroneous views of his 
spirit and abilities. That they might have an oppor- 
tunity to see him in another aspect, we secured him an 
invitation to preach in an important church. The dis- 
course was not surpassed by any delivered during the 
session. At Baltimore he made another effort for a 
hearing, with similar results. That he might speak at 
length, he began before the rules of order were adopted, 
claiming that he could not be prevented from speaking 
as long as he pleased. In this view he was right, but 
was suppressed by an arbitrary assumption of power 
on the part of the presiding officer. Against this a 
protest was made. It is due to the chairman to say 
that he defended himself on the following grounds : 



The Life Stoey. 33 

' Though no rules had been adopted, the bishops are 
charged with the supervision of the interests of the 
Church; the General Conference has traditions; it was 
a critical occasion. It was obvious that the whole 
Conference desired to proceed to business, and it should 
not be reduced to chaos by a technicality. An appeal 
might have been taken, but was not. My motive was 
not to oppress, but to facilitate the business of organ- 
ization.' Notwithstanding this rebuff he grew, in 
the meetings of the committees, in esteem at every 
session, and was welcomed in 1880 by all the former 
members. 

" Dr. Perrine would have attained the greatest influ- 
ence if he had mastered the science of debate in its re- 
lations to the impatience of a large deliberative body; 
if he could have known when to strike and how. He 
had the oratorical temperament in excess, and some- 
times became excited before his audience were as fully 
aroused to the importance of his theme as he was 
himself. He could also be overheated by his own 
rhetoric. If these peculiarities had not impeded his 
efforts, no man in the Church would have surpassed 
him in power to effect his ends. At home he was re- 
spected and loved. 

" Let not his career in the General Conferences of 

which he was a member be considered a failure. His 

fundamental doctrine of the radical distinction between 

the ministry and the laity is held to-day by many of 

the wisest men in the Church, who, while they approve 

lay representation, greatly desire to see the relations of 

the orders more clearly defined. ... He was enthusi- 
3 



34 Principles of Church Government. 

astic in every thing — in theology, literature, natural 
science, art, and the theory of government. He was 
remarkable enough to make obvious his defects, and 
these showed that, without them, he would have been 
great. His death removes an interesting figure from 
the Church, a genial friend from a large circle, and a 
devout minister from his work." 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 35 



CHAPTER II. 

THE LAY DELEGATION MOVEMENT. 

Eventful indeed is the history of lay delegation in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. " Originally, and 
for many years, the Church was governed by the trav- 
eling ministers, through Annual Conferences and a dele- 
gated General Conference. Early in this century symp- 
toms of a desire for a change in the form of government 
appeared. About 1822 the Wesleyan Repository, a paper 
advocating reform (as it was then called), was established 
in Philadelphia. This was followed by a convention of 
'reformers' in Baltimore in 1824, who established as 
their periodical organ in that city The Mutual Mights. 
The objects of attack were the episcopacy and the cler- 
ical government of the Church. In 1827 Dr. Thomas E. 
Bond issued an appeal to Methodists against lay dele- 
gation, which exerted a great influence in determining 
the maintenance of the existing system. At the General 
Conference of 1828 the subject was discussed in the 
celebrated ' Report on Petitions and Memorials,' which 
denied the claims of the petitioners. This report was 
unanimously adopted. By this time Church proceedings 
had been instituted against some of the 'reform party' 
in Baltimore, which resulted in expulsion. Others with- 
drew, and in 1830 the constitution of the 'Methodist 
Protestant Church ' was formed. The controversy was 



86 Principles op Church Government. 

accompanied and followed with great bitterness on both 
sides. Looked at from this distance of time, it is apparent 
that both parties numbered among their leaders good and 
strong men, who unfortunately stood upon extreme and 
irreconcilable propositions. The 'reformers' claimed the 
admission of the laity to the General Conference on the 
ground of the right of the people to share in ecclesiastical 
legislation. This claim was denied by the conservative 
side, chiefly on the ground that the General Conference 
possessed ' no strictly legislative powers.' 

" The discussion rested, after the organization of the 
Methodist Protestant Church, for more than twenty 
years. Shortly before the General Conference of 1852 
a convention of laymen was held in Philadelphia to take 
measures for bringing the subject before the Church 
once more. This convention, however, disclaimed all 
connection with the principles of the reformers of 1S28, 
and asked for lay representation on the ground of ex- 
pediency solely. Dr. Thomas E. Bond, the great an- 
tagonist of the ' radicals,' met the members of the 
committee in the most friendly spirit, and conceded 
to them that lay delegation put on the ground of ex- 
pediency was an open question. While still denying 
the claim of right he went so far as to suggest a plan 
of lay co-operation in the Annual Conferences. The 
petition of the convention to the General Conference 
was denied. In the General Conference of 1856 an 
appeal for lay delegation was presented again, but re- 
ceived very little attention. By 1860 such progress 
had been made that the General Conference, assem- 
bled in that year, referred the measure to a popular 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 87 

and ministerial vote, to be taken in 1861 and 1862. 
Both votes were adverse to lay representation; but the 
vote, though adverse, developed the fact of a growing 
favor for this important measure. The Methodist, 
which was established in 1860, devoted itself to the ad- 
vocacy of it; other papers, especially the ZiorCs Herald 
and the North-western Christian Advocate, urged it 
upon the Church. A largely attended convention of 
laymen was held in New York in the spring of 1863. 
At this meeting it was resolved to hold another con- 
vention, concurrently with the session of the General 
Conference at Philadelphia, in 1864. The convention 
was so held, and presented through a deputation of its 
delegates a memorial to the General Conference, though 
without immediate result. A third convention was 
held, concurrently with the session of the General Con- 
ference at Chicago, in 1868. At this Conference a 
popular and ministerial vote was ordered for the second 
time." * 

It must not be inferred, however, that for some years 
prior to 1868 the laymen throughout the Church 
were in favor of lay representation, while the ministers 
were opposed. The lay conventions at Philadelphia 
and Chicago did not represent the sentiments of all 
their brethren. For instance, a large number of lay- 
men from different States who were present at the 
General Conference in Chicago presented to that body 
a lengthy and earnest memorial, in which they entered 
formal dissent from the statement of facts presented 
to the Conference by the laymen's convention, and pro- 
* G. R. C. in MeClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia. 



38 Principles of Church Government. 

tested against its assumptions and recommendations. 
They represented that their most careful examination 
of the subjects had brought them to the conclusion 
that the Conferences had most emphatically pronounced 
against lay representation until it should be fully ascer- 
tained that the Church at large desired it, and that 
hitherto the Church had manifested no such desire. 
On the contrary, eight years before, the Church had, 
by a formal vote of the entire laity, emphatically dis- 
approved of the proposed innovation. In justification 
of their sentiments and positions they further said: 

"Our form of Church polity, tested by an experience 
of a hundred years, has demonstrated its efficiency as 
an agency for both evangelical propagandism and 
Christian culture. A system so eminently productive 
of fruits ought certainly not to be subverted for light 
causes. 

" Our centenary celebration brought to our view the 
efficiency of the system in its first workings, and also 
demonstrated the faith and confidence of our people in 
its future. Is it wise to trifle with that confidence? 

"As our Church is now governed there is a most 
happy separation of the spiritual and secular offices 
of the body. The ministry, as the servants of the 
Head of the Church, are at the head of the spiritual 
offices, while the laity hold and manage all the Church 
property, the ministry having no legal claims even for 
their own subsistence. If the laity are called upon to 
trust the ministry in the administration of spiritual af- 
fairs, so the ministry is compelled to trust the laity in 
secular and pecuniary .offices. A mutual confidence is 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 39 

thus called for, and hitherto it has been fully given by 
both parties. We believe it altogether safe to exercise 
it still further. . . . We attribute a large share of the 
efficiency and greatness of our Church, under God, to 
its peculiar form of government, and shall dread to 
see it made to conform to other and less successful ec- 
clesiastical systems." 

But the petition of these conservative laymen was 
of no avail. The popular and ministerial vote upon 
the question was ordered by the General Conference, 
and the war was on. 

Following is the text of the plan submitted, as taken 
from the General Conference Journal: 

" The lay delegates shall consist of two laymen for 
each Annual Conference, except such Conferences as 
have but one ministerial delegate, which Conferences 
shall be entitled to one lay delegate each. 

"The lay delegates shall be chosen by an electoral 
conference of laymen, which shall assemble for the pur- 
pose on the third day of the session of the Annual 
Conference, at the place of its meeting, at its session 
immediately preceding the General Conference. 

" The electoral conference shall be composed of one 
layman from each circuit or station within the bounds 
of the Annual Conference, and on assembling the elec- 
toral conference shall organize by electing a chairman 
and secretary of their own number; such laymen to be 
chosen by the last Quarterly Conference preceding the 
time of its assembling; provided, that no layman 
shall be chosen a delegate either to the electoral con- 
ference or to the General Conference who shall be 



40 Principles op Chuech Government. 

under twenty-five years of age, or who shall not have 
been a member of the Church in full connection for 
the five consecutive years preceding the elections. 

"Alter Answer 3 as follows, page 46: 

" Answer 3. At all times when the General Confer- 
ence is met it shall take two thirds of the whole num- 
ber of ministerial and lay delegates to form a quorum 
for transacting business. 

"The ministerial and lay delegates shall sit and de- 
liberate together as one body, but they shall vote sepa- 
rately whenever such separate vote shall be demanded 
by one third of either order, and in such cases the con- 
current vote of both orders shall be necessary to com- 
plete an action." 

From the foregoing it will be remembered: 

1. That the electoral conferences were to choose the 
lay delegates. 

2. That the electoral conferences were to be composed 
of one layman from each circuit or station. 

3. That the delegates to each electoral conference 
were to be elected by the quarterly conferences. 

4. That each lay delegate must be not less than 
twenty-five years old, and a member of the Church for 
not less than five years preceding election. 

5. That the ministerial and lay delegates were to de- 
liberate together in the General Conference. 

6. That a separate vote could not be had except on a 
formal demand of one third of either order. 

1, That the quorum for the transaction of business 
was to consist of two thirds of the whole number of 
ministerial and lay delegates. 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 41 

Against the foregoing " plan " of lay delegation Dr. 
Perrine, with many others, threw himself with all his 
might. He did not oppose the principle of lay delega- 
tion, but rather favored it ; it was the plan he consid- 
ered unscriptural, un-Methodistic, and wholly obnoxious. 
This " plan," he claimed, was wholly separate from the 
principle, and that the formal approval of the latter by 
popular and ministerial vote was not of necessity an 
approval of the former. Distinguished opinions favored 
this view. At the New Hampshire Conference held at 
Nashua, April, 1870, Rev. Dr. L. D. Barrows asked for 
information as to what the Conference was to vote for. 
" Does our vote," he inquired, " include the adoption 
of the plan of the General Conference, or simply the 
amendment of the second restrictive rule, so as to 
allow the General Conference to introduce a moderate 
lay delegation ? " 

Rev. J. Pike said he considered it to be the latter, 
and moved that the Conference respectfully request the 
bishop to give his views upon the question. 

The motion unanimously prevailed, and in compliance 
therewith Bishop Simpson said that while he would not, 
in the chair, express any opinion on the merits of the 
question, yet on the legal point involved his opinion 
was that the vote of the Conference was not to be on 
the plan, but simply and alone on the alteration of the 
restrictive rule. He said: " It was admitted by all that 
the last General Conference had not enacted any plan, 
but only proposed it, and that the last General Confer- 
ence had no power to bind the next." He said further: 
" If three fourths of the members of the Annual Con- 



42 Principles of Church Government. 

ferences should vote for the alteration of the rule it 
could not be accomplished until two thirds of the en- 
suing General Conference should concur ; that no part 
of the plan submitted could go into effect, except the 
election of the two lay delegates as prescribed, before 
the next General Conference. That before their admis- 
sion into General Conference not only must the rule be 
altered, but a plan for their introduction and duties 
must be enacted, then a vote must be had on their for- 
mal admission." 

Bishop Baker, who was present, was announced as 
concurring in this decision. The Conference cast its 
ballot in the light of said decision, the vote standing 
yeas 68, nays 25. 

The Methodist of April 16, and Ziorts Herald of 
April 14, same year, snid : "Bishop Janes, before the 
New York Conference, declared that the vote of the 
Conference did not touch the plan, but only gave the 
General Conference power to admit laymen to its 
body." Ziorts Herald of May 5 said : " The plan Avill 
be in the hands of the next General Conference, to al- 
ter and amend at pleasure. Such is the opinion of 
Bishop Janes, for he is quoted as saying, ' In my opin- 
ion it will not require a constitutional vote to alter the 
details of the plan, as they will not be included in the 
restrictive rule.' No small debate will spring up on the 
plan as soon as it is settled that lay delegates can be 
admitted. In fact, the last General Conference, in de- 
clining to act on the plan and sending it out with 
a two third vote for the concurrence of the Annual 
Conferences, undoubtedly intended to keep any modifi- 



The Lay DeleGx^tion Movement. 43 

cations of the plan in its own future power. These 
modifications can include every thing except the num- 
ber of the lay delegates. There will not, probably, be 
any great change from the plan proposed, yet there may 
be some clearer distinctions of non-interference by the 
laity in purely ministerial questions, such as appeals." 

Dr. Perrine was careful to get his views also before 
the Church. After the vote had been taken which in- 
dicated that the principle of lay delegation had been 
indorsed by the people and preachers, he wrote a letter 
to the New York Advocate (March 28, 1872), in which 
he argued very forcibly, by an examination of the fig- 
ures of the vote, that the " plan " for lay representation 
had not been indorsed, and further, that it had never 
been voted upon. He then said : 

" The substantial justness of Bishop Simpson's decision 
before the New Hampshire Conference will be evi- 
denced, we think, in the light of the following brief 
analysis of the report of the last General Conference 
Committee on Lny Delegation. That report consists of 
a preamble and three resolutions. 

"The first resolution of the report contains simply a 
recommendation of a ' plan to the godly consideration 
of our ministers and people.' It is not a requisition 
even to consider the plan, much less a requisition to 
vote upon it. All the peculiar features of this plan are 
specified in the changes proposed in the first and third 
answers to the question, ' Who shall compose the Gen- 
eral Conference, and what are the regulations and pow- 
ers belonging to it ? " and are all embodied in this first 
resolution. 



44 Principles of Church Government. 

" The second resolution of the report contains two 
distinct and unconditional requisitions : 

" 1. ' That during the month of June, 1869, . . . there 
shall be held a general election ... at which all mem- 
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church . . . shall be 
invited to vote by ballot (not for the plan) for lay del- 
egation or against lay delegation.' 

" 2. ' It shall be the duty of the bishops presid- 
ing at the several Annual Conferences ... to lay 
before those bodies (not ' the plan,' but) the follow- 
ing proposed amendments to the second restrictive 
rule.' " 

The third resolution is simply a reiteration of a 
fundamental provision of the constitution, and neither 
adds to nor subtracts from the powers of the General 
Conference in the case. 

" 3. But whether Bishop Simpson was right or 
wrong in his interpretation this fact is undisturbed : 
So odious was the plan to most parties, for various and 
conflicting reasons, that lay delegation was carried only 
on the basis of this interpretation. Can we in honor 
disregard the implied pledge to every Conference before 
whom these declarations were made that first ' a plan 
for their introduction and duties must be enacted, and 
then a vote must be had on their formal admission ' be- 
fore the delegates previously elected could be admitted 
within the bar of the Conference. Shall courtesy sup- 
plant honor ? " 

Dr. Curry, the then editor of the Christian Advo- 
cate, commenting on Dr. Perrine's article, said : 

" The ' plan ' was simply recommended to the con- 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 45 

sideration of ministers and people. Conceding the 
necessity of changing the second restrictive rule before 
lay delegates could be admitted to the General Confer- 
ence, it was directed that the question of such a change 
should be submitted to the several Annual Conferences. 
This has been done, and it is the only thing so far per- 
formed of which the law of the Church can, at the 
present stage of the business, take any cognizance. The 
whole process of securing the appointment of provis- 
ional lay delegates is quite outside of the proper law 
of the Church. The delegates elected by the lay elec- 
toral conferences are only provisional, and only when 
it shall be conceded to them by a regular and legal 
process can they have any status in the General Con- 
ference." 

Rev. Dr. J. M. Reid, editor of the North-wester a 
Christian Advocate, also commented on Dr. Perrine's 
article, and expressed agreement with him on the fol- 
lowing points : 

" 1. The people voted only on the principle, and not 
on the plan. Their ballots were ' for lay delegation ' 
and ' against lay delegation.' 

" 2. The ministers did not vote on the plan, but 
solely on the alteration of the restrictive rule. Nothing 
else was ever submitted to the Conferences by the 
bishops. They were not authorized to present any 
thing else." 

Dr. Perrine's views on the proper organization of the 
General Conference under the new regimen were further 
expressed in an article published subsequent to the 
above. He said : 



46 Principles of Church Government. 

" Will you permit me to speak for myself ? The fol- 
lowing may indicate my position : 

" 1. The last General Conference enacted no plan, 
not even provisionally. (See foregoing Analysis.) 

"2. It did not recommend the enactment of any plan 
by any party, people, Annual or General Conferences. 
It simply ' recommended' a ' plan to the godly consid- 
eration of our ministers and people.' 

" 3. Marvelous as it may seem, the last General Con- 
ference did not even condition the election of lay dele- 
gates on the favorable action of the Annual Confer- 
ences, as it had the clearest constitutional right to do. 
(See Discipline, pp. 50,51.) It simply ' recommended ' 
such a method of appointment to the 'godly considera- 
tion' of the Church. Dr. Curry very justly says, 'The 
whole process of securing the appointment of provisional 
lay delegates is quite outside the proper law of the 
Church.' This very remarkable feature of the Report 
on Lay Delegation was either designed or it was not. 
If designed, it was evidently intended to give the ensu- 
ing General Conference the largest possible liberty in the 
case. If not designed, it was an oversight adequately 
illustrating the peculiar merits of that very peculiar 
style of legislation which drafts overnight a radical 
measure involving the constituent existence and func- 
tions of the legislative body itself, and drives it through 
next morning under the whip of the 'previous ques- 
tion' — not quite apostolical or Wesleyan. 

"4. The General Conference of 1868 did, however, 
morally and legally, condition the action of that of 
1872. But, the condition being upon the indorsement 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 47 

of the principle, not of the plan, by the people ( c for or 
against lay delegation'), and upon the three fourths 
vote of the Animal Conferences for or against 'the 
change of the restrictive rule' — not for or against the 
plan — the coming General Conference is not under the 
slightest possible obligation, legal or moral, in view of 
the past action of any party, to enact the plan simply 
* recommended to godly consideration,' unless upon 
mature deliberation it shall be found in their godly 
judgment to be the best possible plan — the most com- 
patible with those 'general and fundamental principles 
of church government' which all our fathers believed 
' were laid down in the Scriptures ; ' the best adapted 
to give strength and cogency to the divinely appointed 
ministry in the fulfillment of its great commission ; 
the best adapted to give us the experienced and pecul- 
iarly developed powers of our gifted and devout laity 
in fullest and freest energy for the urgent service of the 
Church. 

"5. The approaching General Conference is morally 
and legally bound to enact some plan for 'the admis- 
sion and duties' of lay delegates whom it may deem 
morally entitled to seats in that body. In view of the 
favorable vote of the people for the principle, and of 
the three fourths vote of the Annual Conferences favor- 
ing the change of the restrictive rule, we believe the 
legal 'can' complete the change of the third resolution 
of the report is a moral ought ; the legal ' may ' be ad- 
mitted is a moral must. I most religiously believe that 
the voice of God in his providence and in his word, the 
voice of the people and of the ministry, all unite to call 



48 Principles of Church Government. 

our able and consecrated laity into the legislative coun- 
cils of the Church, but with other functions than to bar 
the action of the ministry especially called of God and 
elected by the people to the spiritual supervision of the 
Church of God. Ordered by the inspired apostles par- 
ticularly to the department of secularities (Acts vi), our 
laymen 'of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and 
wisdom,' should be there to assist especially in the ad- 
ministration of finance, in the management of our great 
educational and publishing funds, thus so relieving the 
ministry that they may give themselves the more con- 
tinually to things pertaining ' to the ministry of the 
word.' The inspired men of the first century saw 
clearly and declared the truth : 'It is not reason that 
we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.' 

" 6. This legal and moral ' ought ' and ' must ' in the 
' can complete the change ' and ' may be admitted ' evi- 
dently rests upon the same party. The party that 
admits the laymen 'completes the change,' and this 
party is the ministerial body — the legal General Con- 
ference ; and on them alone we believe the word of 
God, the constitution of the Church, and the action of 
the last General Conference concur in laying the grave 
responsibility of enacting the status of the future Gen- 
eral Conference. 

"7. The clause 'can complete the change' implies 
the change of the chapter ; or, in other words, the en- 
actment of a plan as the condition to the admission of 
'lay delegates previously elected.' 

"(1.) All must admit that the lay delegates cannot 
enter the General Conference until its constitution, 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 49 

which from the beginning has enumerated the Regula- 
tions and powers ' of clerical delegates alone, is changed. 

" (2.) All must admit that the constitution of the Gen- 
eral Conference is alone set forth in the answers to the 
question, ' Who shall compose the General Conference, 
and what are the regulations and powers belonging 
to it ? ' 

" (3.) All must admit that the proposed ' change of 
the constitution' of the General Conference must con- 
sist in the change of the first and third of these an- 
swers — and that this change of the constitution can 
only be reached by the change of the second restrictive 
rule 

"(4.) All must also admit that this change of the 
second restrictive rule either covers all the proposed 
changes in the answers first and third, or that it does 
not. 

"If it does, then this * above constitutional change' 
is 'compelled' — then, the whole plan is enacted the 
instant the General Conference by a two thirds vote 
sh;ill have changed the second restrictive rule ! But 
this supposition is preposterous, and is antagonized by 
the position of all parties. If, on the other hand, it be 
admitted that the second restrictive rule does not 
cover all the proposed changes in the answers first and 
third, then the 'change' is not 'completed' — then the 
express condition for the admission of ' the lay dele- 
gates previously elected 'is not met. Then lay dele- 
gates cannot enter until a plan for their introduction 
and duties is enacted. 

" For those who care less for invincible logic than for 

4 



50 Principles of Church Government. 

parliamentary decorum, we have the following ad cap- 
tandum: Imagine our lay delegates insisting on instant 
admission into a body constitutionally clerical from the 
beginning, that they ' may assist in making a plan ; ' in 
other words, changing the constitution of that body. 
With what becoming grace could one of these dele- 
gates, already in the body, rise and move the change of 
the first answer in the plan — ' The General Conference 
shall be composed of ministerial and lay delegates ! ' 
or the ministerial and lay delegates, already sitting to- 
gether, move that * the ministerial and lay delegates 
shall sit and deliberate together ! ' The thought is so 
preposterous that we very much doubt that any lay- 
man with sense and dignity sufficient to constitute an 
efficient legislator in the Church could possibly be in- 
duced to consent to occupy for an instant a position 
so anomalous, not to say ineffably ridiculous. Our es- 
timate of the thorough good sense of our ' provisional 
lay delegates' was altogether too high to have admit- 
ted even the thought of such a contingency, until we 
saw it gravely suggested as the very thing to be done ! 

" Bishop Simpson's position is an impregnable one. 
4 Before their (the lay delegates) admission into Gen- 
eral Conference, not only must the rule be altered, but 
a plan for their introduction and duties must be en- 
acted ; then a vote must be had on their formal ad- 
mission.' 

" 8. For those who, with The Methodist, think that 
' A departure from the plan after its recommendation (?) 
by the General Conference of 1868, and its accept- 
ance (?) by the Church, would seem to the laity to be a 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 51 

breach of faith,' we wish briefly to restate the case : 
1. The General Conference never 'recommended' a 
plan— except for 'godly consideration.' 2. Although 
not ' before the people ' or ' before the preachers ' for 
their votes, the plan was before the people and the 
Conferences for ' godly consideration,' and the Michi- 
gan Conference so regarded it, and' simply so declared 
for the satisfaction of all parties,' for ' in proceeding to 
vote on the change of the restrictive rule,' so says the 
report unanimously adopted by that body, ' the Michi- 
gan Annual Conference puts on record the following 
declarations : 

" (1.) ' The vote we cast is solely upon the change of 
the restrictive rule. 

" (2.) ' We do not indorse the plan proposed by the 

General Conference for our consideration. 
(( /g \ # * # 

" (4.) ' We declare ourselves not only not opposed to, 
but in favor of, a scheme of lay delegation which shall 
not interfere with the divinely designated authority of 
the Christian ministry.' Implying, as strongly as lan- 
guage can imply any thing, that, though voting for the 
principle of lay delegation in the change of the re- 
strictive rule, they did unanimously declare themselves 
opposed to the plan, for the strongest of all possible 
rensons, that it interfered 'with the divinely designated 
authority of the Christian ministry.' They could not 
more utterly have ' condemned ' the plan. They could 
not more effectually* have disposed of all such intima- 
tions of its ' acceptance by the Church ! ! ! ' For the 
ninety-four 'aye' votes of the Michigan Conference 



52 Peinciples of Chitech Goveenment. 

cast for the change of the restrictive rule must be de- 
ducted from the column supposed to favor the plan ; 
and as the constitutional majority claimed was but 
forty-four, this deduction of ' ninety-four ' votes will 
demonstrate that the plan could not have carried in any 
sense by fifty ministerial votes. And so generally 
odious was the plan that it was only possible, barely 
possible, to carry lay delegation through the Annual 
Conferences by such an interpretation as should leave 
the General Conference with the largest possible liberty 
to follow their godly judgments in the construction of 
the plan. 

" 9. We most sincerely believe that a better thing by 
far can be done for the laity in the possible plan : 

" (1.) We may make the laity in the future, in reality, 
not in name, the representatives of the people ; not of 
a mere handful of the laity — the quarterly conference — 
which too often may be, as it is said, ' the mere creat- 
ure of the preacher.' The fact is that the so-called 
1 lay representatives,' so far as the methods of appoint- 
ment are concerned, no more represent the people than 
does every clerical delegate originally elected by the 
same quarterly conference to a conference electoral 
once in four years to the General Conference ! Let us 
widen the electoral basis of the possible plan, and make 
every adult member of the Church an elector, with a 
voice in the choice of their representatives. 

" (2.) Let the lay representative basis also be widened. 
Why should the Methodist Church, for illustration, in 
Michigan, with its sixty thousand members, be repre- 
sented by only four laymen, while its four hundred 



The LxVY Delegation Movement. 53 

and fifty preachers are represented by thirteen clerical 
delegates ? Another vote of the Annual Conferences 
should admit at least an equal number of the laity and 
clergy to the legislative councils of the Church from 
within the same bounds. 

" (3.) If thought expedient, lay delegates from every 
charge might be admitted to the Annual Conferences, 
which are simply executive bodies, and share in the 
election of their clerical or spiritual rulers, as in the 
apostolical and primitive churches — a fundamental 
right which Methodism has always theoretically ac- 
knowledged. Our clerical delegates, called of God and 
elected by the people, would then become, as in the 
apostolic times, the ' messengers of the churches and 
the glory of Christ.' By giving thus to the entire adult 
laity of the Church voice in the primary 'recommenda- 
tions' or elections to the Annual Conferences of both 
clerical and lay delegates, and to the clerical and lay 
delegates together in the Annual Conferences voice in 
the election of all delegates to the General Conference, 
and in the General Conference joint action in the elec- 
tion of all our bishops, we shall thus be prepared for 
the easy adjustment of a plan which, while it shall se- 
cure to the laity the fullest representation in every 
branch of the General Conference, shall at the same 
time save ' the divinely designated authority of the 
Christian ministry,' and preserve in every essential 
feature the constitution and polity of Methodism intact. 
The plan may be simply this : The organization of the 
General Conference in three concurrent houses or de- 
partments — the House of Bishops, of Presbyters, and 



51 Principles of Church Government. 

of the Laity ; the concurrence of two houses at least 
being necessary to complete an action. 

" 10. If it is urged that 'this will cause unnecessary 
delay,' we will simply say that it will secure that ' nec- 
essary delay' which, in the judgment of all modern 
founders of free States, is the great desideratum in leg- 
islation — to be best secured by the division of the legis- 
lative body at least into two branches. 

" And in proof of the demand for delay in Method- 
ist legislation, we simply point to the appropriate 
monument of May 29, 1868 — to a confused mass of 'in- 
terpretations of the plan,' heaped not quite to heaven, 
and capped with this fact — that lay delegation has 
providentially carried, despite the very condition on 
which in the impetuous rush of that most remarkable 
day the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church suspended it ; for, as we have demonstrated, the 
' above proposed change in the constitution of the 
Church ' refers not only to the change of the restrictive 
rule which was submitted to vote of the Annual Con- 
ferences, but especially to the answers of the question, 
' Who shall compose the General Conference, and what 
are the regulations and powers belonging to it ? ' which 
all agree was never submitted to the vote of either 
preacher or people ! The stable provision of the con- 
stitution alone — not the ' third resolution' of a popular 
tempest — saved the cause. 

" 11. For the benefit of those who may be meditat- 
ing the inauguration of a similar furore for the enact- 
ment of that same plan, we beg leave to quote the 
words of one of the founders of the Republic, written 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 55 

at the time the Constitution of the United States was 
before the States for their adoption or rejection : 

" * It is a misfortune,' says James Madison, ' insepa- 
rable from human affairs that public measures are rarely 
investigated with that spirit of moderation which is es- 
sential to a just estimate of their real tendency to ad- 
vance or obstruct the public good, and that this spirit 
is more apt to be diminished than promoted by those 
very occasions which require an unusual exercise of it.' * 

" The fathers of the Republic were men fully con- 
scious of the dignity of their mission. They gave time, 
study, and devotion to their great work. And as the 
result not only of their wise distribution of the various 
powers of government, but especially by the division of 
the legislative department into two houses, with their 
admirable adjustments, they have given us in our na- 
tional and State Legislatures the model deliberative 
assemblies of the world. As the radical tide is just 
now setting with fearful power in upon the Church, 
threatening to sweep away every landmark of the polity 
of our fathers, how imperative it is that the coming 
General Conference, ' whom God hath so strangely set 
free' from the plan, should build up for our safety 
against all the perils of the future the dikes of a great 
and efficient system — one that shall combine freedom 
with power ; that shall at the same time inspire the 
whole body of the laity with zeal and add momentum 
to the most energetic of ministries. The time is not 
distant when, doubtless, there shall come before this 
great legislative body of Methodism interests of far 
* Federalist, p. 282. 



oQ Principles of Church Government. 

greater moment than have ever agitated the political 
congresses and parliaments of the nations. Methodism 
is to take the world for Jesus. The Western says : 
' The occasion is grand — the work is momentous.' We 
believe it. All other business of the coming session — 
Book Concern, colored bishops, the ' woman question,' 
etc., etc. — all dwindle into utter insignificance before 
this stupendous work of organization, that, like another 
Mont Blanc, may lift its summit into the clear light of 
the centuries to come. W. H. Perrine." 

Bishop Ames entertained similar views respecting 
the proposed " plan." The North-western Christian Ad- 
vocate obtained and published from Dr. E. O. Haven, 
chairman of the General Conference committee on the 
subject, a proposition made to the committee by Bishop 
Ames, in writing, which he recommended as a suitable 
plan to be adopted. The discussion had then pro- 
ceeded so far that it was not deemed advisable by the 
committee to change this report, and the report of the 
" committee of conference " on the subject effectually 
prevented this plan proposed by Bishop Ames from 
coming before the General Conference. " We greatly 
regretted at the time," says the JVorth-vwstern, "that 
the General Conference did not take time to weigh this 
proposition of one of the wisest of our chief pastors. 
It had, to many minds, some startling aspects. It was 
a proposition to give concurrent powers to a house of 
lay delegates in making all our rules and regulations, 
and in all elections, except only such as relate to minis- 
terial administration and character. This change was 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 57 

to be made at once, and without a change of general 
rule." 

The plan, in detail, was to add to Chapter I, on the 
" Government of the Church," another section, as fol- 
lows. We now quote from Bishop Ames : 

" SECTION II. 

"OF THE HOUSE OP LAY DELEGATES. 

" Question 1. Who shall compose the house of lay 
delegates? and what are the regulations and powers 
belonging to it ? 

"Answer 1. The .house of lay delegates shall be com- 
posed of so many stewards from within the bounds of 
each Annual Conference as the conference has minis- 
terial delegates to the General Conference: yet so that 
the delegates thus chosen shall have filled the office of 
steward at least four full calendar years. 

" Arts. 2. The house of lay delegates shall meet on the 
first day of May, 1872, and thenceforward on the first 
day of May, once in four years perpetually, in such 
places as shall be fixed only by the concurrent vote of 
the house of lay delegates and of the General Con- 
ference. 

u Ans. 3. At all times when the house of lay dele- 
gates is met, it shall take two thirds to form a quorum 
for the transaction of business. 

" Ans. 4. One of the general superintendents shall 
preside. 

"Ans. 5. The house of lay delegates shall have con- 
current authority in making rules and regulations for 
our Church, and in the election of bishops, and of all 



58 Principles of Church Government. 

officers to be chosen; and in all other matters except 
such as relate to ministerial administration and char- 
acter. Measures may be originated either in the house 
of lay delegates or in the General Conference. 

" Question 2. How shall the lay delegates be chosen ? 

"Answer 1. There shall be a quadrennial confer- 
ence, composed of one steward from each pastoral 
charge, to be chosen by the third quarterly conference 
of the year preceding the session of the General Con- 
ference. The members of the quadrennial conference 
thus chosen shall fix the time and place of their 
meeting, and when organized shall proceed to elect, 
by ballot, from among the members of their own 
body, as many delegates to the house of lay dele- 
gates as the Annual Conference is entitled to have in 
the General Conference. The quadrennial conferences 
shall provide for the expenses of the house of lay 
delegates." 

A great many other " plans" were submitted and dis- 
cussed in the newspapers of the period, all tending to 
show that the ministers and laymen generally did not 
especially favor the particular plan proposed, nor think 
that the General Conference of 1872 was under the 
slightest obligation to adopt it. But it had its sworn 
friends, as the sequel will show. 

On the first day of the General Conference of 1872, 
after the organization of the conference had been 
effected, Bishop Janes stated that the bishops were 
ready to report the vote of the several conferences on 
the change of the second restrictive rule, providing for 
the introduction of lay delegates into the General Con- 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 59 

ference ; whereupon, at the request of the conference, 
Bishop Simpson presented the following : 

" Dear Brethren : The last General Conference 
devised a plan for lay delegation, which they recom- 
mended to the godly consideration of our ministers and 
people. In connection with this plan [italics ours] they 
directed the bishops to lay before the several Annual 
Conferences a proposed alteration of the second re- 
strictive rule, and to report the result of the vote 
thereon to this General -Conference. 

" In compliance with said action, we laid before each 
of the Annual Conferences the proposition to alter the 
second restrictive rule, by adding thereto the word 
* ministerial' after the word 'one,' and after the word 
' forty-five ' the words ' nor more than two lay delegates 
for any Annual Conference.' Each conference voted 
on said proposition, and the aggregate result is as fol- 
lows : 

For the proposed change 4,915 

Against the proposed change 1,597 

Blank 4 

"In behalf of the bishops, M. Simpson." 

After this report was read the following paper, 
signed by J. T. Peck, W. L. Harris, R. S. Foster, G. 
Haven, and T. M. Eddy, was submitted and read : 

" Whereas, The General Conference, at its session in 
Chicago in 1868, devised a plan for the admission of 
lay delegates as members of said General Conference, 
and recommended it to the godly consideration of our 
ministers and people ; and, 



60 Peincipi.es of Church Government. 

" Whereas, A large majority of the members of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church present and voting in ac- 
cordance with the provisions of said plan [italics ours] 
voted in favor of lay delegation ; and, 

" Whereas, Three fourths of the members of the An- 
nual Conferences voted in favor of the change of the 
restrictive rules proposed in said plan, for the purpose 
of making it lawful to admit to the General Confer- 
ence lay delegates in accordance with said plan [italics 
ours]; therefore, 

"Resolved, 1. By the delegates of the several Annual 
Conferences in General Conference assembled, that the 
change in the restrictive rules submitted by the Gen- 
eral Conference, and adopted by the required three 
fourths of the members of the Annual Conferences vot- 
ing thereon in accordance with the provisions of said 
plan, in the words following, to wit (see Plan), be and 
hereby is adopted. 

"Resolved, 2. That said plan is hereby ratified nnd 
adopted, and declared to be in full force, and the lay 
delegates elected under it are hereby invited to take 
their seats as members of the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, on their credentials 
now in the hands of the secretary." 

We shall not attempt to describe the scene, far less 
record the resolutions offered and speeches made, which 
followed this adroitly worded paper. The haste and 
excicement, the indisposition to hear the remarks of any 
opponent of ihe " plan," were not creditable to a body 
of Christian ministers called to deliberate upon the 
weighty matters of the Church. 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 61 

Finally, on motion of W. F. Cowles, the Conference 
ordered a division of the matter pending, so that the 
vote could first be taken on the proposed change of the 
second restrictive rule, as follows : 

"Resolved, That this General Conference does hereby 
concur with the Annual Conferences in changing the 
second restrictive rule so as to read as follows : 

"They shall not allow of more than one ministerial 
representative for every fourteen members of an Annual 
Conference, nor allow of less than one for every forty- 
five, nor more than two lay delegates for any Annual 
Conference." 

The ayes and nays having been ordered, on calling 
the roll it was found that 283 had voted in the affirma- 
tive, Dr. Perrine among the number, and that six had 
voted in the negative. Three were absent or failed to 
vote. The resolution was therefore adopted. 

On the motion which then followed, to vote on so 
much of the pending resolution as ratified and adopted 
the plan, the previous question being called for, it was 
found that 252 voted in the affirmative and 36 in the 
negative, Dr. Perrine among the latter. Motion, of 
course, adopted. 

On the next motion, that the roll of laymen be called 
and that they be admitted to seats in the General Con- 
ference to deliberate together with the ministers as one 
body, 288 voted in the affirmative and one — Dr. Perrine 
— voted No! So the motion prevailed, and lay delega- 
tion as it now stands was an accomplished fact in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

But it was not long before the plan was subjected to 



62 Principles of Church Government. 

a practical test, and the outcome was any thing but 
pleasing to its friends. 

On the morning of May 21a lay delegate moved that 
the laymen demand a separate vote in the election of 
bishops. Fending discussion of the question by the 
laymen, the point was raised that on a call for the sep- 
arate vote of the two orders discussion was out of or- 
der. The chairman decided the point to be well taken, 
whereupon an appeal to the Conference was taken, but 
the ruling was sustained. The laymen, therefore, were 
denied discussion of their own motion. 

Before the day's session closed the following protest 
was read and entered on the Journal: 

" Protest. 
" General Conference Room, May 21, 1812. 

"To the General Conference: We, lay delegates, 
who thought it right to record our names for a separate 
vote of the two orders in the election of bishops, re- 
spectfully protest against the proceedings this morning 
by which we were placed in a false light. After one 
speech for the movement and two speeches against it, 
we were required to vote in silence, and not allowed a 
word of explanation. 

" We further protest against our votes being regarded 
as in any sense hostile or antagonistic to our ministers, 
and we challenge those who voted against us to a con- 
test in our love and esteem for them." Signed by John 
Evans and twenty-two others.* 

A day or two further on (May 2.3) Rev. I. Corwin 
* Journal, 1872, pp. 291, 299. 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 63 

presented the following resolution, which was referred 
to the Committee on Itinerancy: 

" ltesolved, That answer 3 to question 1, Chapter I, 
of Part II of Discipline be, and the same is hereby, al- 
tered so that it shall read as follows: 

" Answer 3. At all times when the General Confer- 
ence is met it shall take two thirds of the whole num- 
ber of ministerial and lay delegates to form a quorum 
for transacting business. The ministerial and lay dele- 
gates shall sit and deliberate together as one body, but 
on any proposition to make, alter, or amend any rule 
or regulation of the Discipline they shall vote separately 
whenever such separate vote shall be demanded by one 
third of the members present of either order, in which 
case the concurrent vote of both orders shall be neces- 
sary to complete the action." 

Of course this resolution stirred up the laymen. It 
was in their judgment a stealthy blow at their rights 
under the plan. A call was circulated for a meeting 
in the lecture-room of Washington Street Church to 
consider what action should be taken in the premises. 
The call was signed by Chancellor Bates, of Delaware, 
Colonel Thompson, of Indiana, and Judge Goodrich, of 
Rock River. 

According to the reports of the meeting which ap- 
peared at the time, about sixty lay delegates were pres- 
ent. Previous to organizing, Colonel Thompson sug- 
gested that the gentlemen present furnish their names 
and addresses for publication, so that they might know 
something of each other. 

The meeting then organized by the election of ex-Sen- 



61 Principles of Church Government. 

ator Lane, of Indiana, chairman, Mr. Bonner, St. Louis, 
secretary, and General Albright, of Philadelphia, assist- 
ant secretary. Colonel Thompson suggested that Gov. 
Evans, of Colorado, state the object of the meeting. 

Gov. Evans said that a measure had been introduced 
into the General Conference that morning very seriously 
affecting the interests of the constituencies who had sent 
lay delegates to that Conference. They all knew that 
a separate vote fur each order, when demanded, had 
been decided upon at Chicago as a substitute for equal 
representation. Equal representation had been found 
to be impracticable, though the preachers were in favor 
of it. Even reducing the number of clerical represen- 
tatives as low as it could be under the organic law of 
the Church — one to forty-five — the General Conference 
would then be too numerous a body with equal repre- 
sentation. A separate vote was therefore granted the 
laity as an equivalent for equal representation. It was 
now proposed to take that from them, except on ques- 
tions of discipline. Questions of discipline the majority 
of them would be willing to leave to the ministers, 
but there were other grave and important interests in 
which the laity desired to exercise their right of a 
separate vote. Even with a separate vote the laymen 
cannot elect a man who has not a minority of the min- 
isters, but now the laymen and a minority of the clergy 
could elect a man distasteful to the clergy. 

Mr. Amos Shinkle, of Kentucky, differed with Gov. 
Evans, and regretted that the meeting had been called 
to discuss questions which should have been decided 
in the Conference, and nowhere else. The laity had 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 65 

already received more privileges than they could have 
reasonably expected — for instance, in being admitted 
to the Committee on Appeals. It was unfortunate that 
the meeting had been called. Sixty-one laymen could 
tie the hands of any man, even if three hundred men 
might vote for him. Was it right that sixty-one men 
should control the General Conference? He should vote 
against it now, there, andevery-where. He would vote 
for the change proposed that morning, and was even 
willing to go further and vote that the right to call be 
stricken out. 

Judge McCalmont, of Erie, said that the two lay 
representatives from a Conference should represent just 
exactly their constituency, as the seven or the nine min- 
isters from a Conference. Were one hundred and forty 
laymen to be overruled by the clerical delegates? 

The Hon. Hiram Price, of Iowa, said that for many 
years it had been thrown as a reproach to the Method- 
ist Church in the United States that they were priest- 
ridden and overruled by preachers. The General Con- 
ference four years ago made a law that the laymen 
should have an equal voice in the councils of the 
Church. Under the principle laid down in the plan 
they had an equal voice. Change the plan, and they 
will have no representation in fact at all. 

Mr. Comstock, of New York, thought the right to a 
separate vote should be exercised only in extraordinary 
cases. He did not think it should be exercised in the 
minor matter of electing officers. 

Mr. Bruehl, Central German, condemned the action 
of those brethren who were throwing a fire-brand into 



66 Principles of Church Government. 

the Conference. He thought matters should be left to 
the ministers. 

Colonel Thompson, of Indiana, thought that an of- 
ficial elected by concurrent vote would be more accept- 
able to the people than one elected by the joint vote 
of clergy and laity. He did not expect, when the first 
opportunity presented itself for putting into operation 
the adopted method of equal representation that their 
ministerial brethren would charge them with antago- 
nism. If that is Christian, then the system is un- 
christian. The system is attacked to-day. What are 
you going to do about it? I will get down on my 
knees and pray before Almighty God for every preacher 
in that congregation that will get mad at that Disci- 
pline. I want a separate vote retained in that Discipline 
till we see whether it works badly or well. 

Judge Groo, of New York, did not think that the 
General Conference in Chicago intended equal represen- 
tation by the plan of lay delegation adopted, but he 
hoped to live to see the day when they would have 
man for man in the General Conference. As, however, 
the plan adopted gave the laity certain rights, he was 
in favor, for one, whenever it was proposed to infringe 
on those rights, to have a separate vote, and vote it 
down every time. 

Gov. Evans offered a resolution declaring it to be the 
sense of the meeting that the plan for lay delegation 
should not be changed for the next four years. 

L. J. Critchfield, of Ohio, moved, as a substitute, the 
following: 

" W/iereas, In the present plan of lay delegation, the 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 67 

right to vote by separate orders was, so far as regards 
lay representation, intended as a compensation for the 
inequality in numbers between ministerial and lay del- 
egates; therefore, 

" Hesoloed, That we are opposed to any change of the 
Discipline that will limit or qualify the present right of 
the lay delegates to a vote by separate orders, while the 
inequality in numbers between ministerial and lay dele- 
gates exists; and that we will call for a vote by orders on 
any proposed change of the Discipline upon this subject." 

This substitute was accepted by Gov. Evans. 

Mr. Critchfield said he thought that the ministers 
who lost their temper when a separate vote was asked 
for were wrong. 

Colonel Thompson said, " We didn't get mad when it 
was voted down." 

Judge Reynolds, of New York, said that there was 
the plan upon which lay delegation was founded, one 
of the laws of the Church. It was adopted after ma- 
ture discussion in the Conference of 1868; it traveled 
around all the Conferences, and received about two 
thirds of the clerical votes and received about two 
thirds of the votes of the laity voting upon it. He 
supposed it meant what it said, that the laity had the 
right to call for a separate vote at any time on any oc- 
casion; not only on changes in the Discipline, but in the 
minor matter, ns a brother chose to call it, of electing 
officers. It was neither incredible nor unprecedented 
that unworthy men should creep into office in the 
Church, and it would be better that every man who 
sought high office in the Church should have to go 



68 Principles of Church Government. 

through two sieves instead of one. There was no 
ground for alarm in the minds of the ministry. It was 
rather strange that, when they had deliberately and with 
consideration given the laity certain power, the very 
first occasion that the laity proposed to exercise that 
power the clergy should be seized with such excitement 
and trembling that the very next day a jDroposition was 
brought in to abolish it. Suppose that the laity them- 
selves elected under that plan should concur ! When 
the call was asked for, some of the laity were so fright- 
ened by the excitement of their brother ministers that 
they consented to waive a right given them by the 
clergy of the Conference four years ago. He hoped 
they would have the moral courage on proper occasions 
to exercise that right, and that it would never be ex- 
ercised on an improper occasion. 

Judge Hubbard, of East Genesee, said the right of 
separate vote was a conservative power and not a fire- 
brand. If the ministers cannot allow us to use the con- 
stitutional powers they have given us, it seems to me 
they ought to pray for more grace. The only trouble 
is a lack of grace. Among the laity people have all the 
powers that belong to them, and when they acquire as 
much grace as an ordinary civilian there will be no dif- 
ference about the matter. 

Chancellor Bates, of Delaware, reasoned against 
changing the plan at that session. 

General Patton, of Pennsylvania, said that he be- 
lieved what Bishop Scott had said that day — that he did 
not think that a corporal's guard of preachers would 
vote to take the right of the laymen away. 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 69 

Colonel Thompson: "Let us separate, and then we 
will find out." 

Judge Corwin, of Ohio, said that upon exami- 
nation he had become satisfied that the laity had 
a right to call for a separate vote in questions of 
election. 

Mr. W. R. Woodward, of Baltimore, and Mr. D. N. 
Cooley, of Iowa, spoke in defense of the rights of the 
laymen. The latter said, "Let us do right, though the 
heavens fall ! " 

Mr. Oliver Hoyt, of New York, said he for one would 
go to his home in shame were the laity to allow the sys- 
tem to be changed in that General Conference. It 
would put them in a position they could not submit to. 
He believed they would not submit to it. 

Judge Goodrich thought the separate vote power 
should only be exercised on extraordinary occasions. 
He looked on it as a veto power. 

General Albright said it was a legislative power. 

Action was then taken on the Critchh'eld resolution, 
which carried by thirty-nine in the affirmative to six in 
the negative. The meeting adjourned. 

Dr. Perrine noted very carefully all of these published 
sentiments of the laymen, and so far as they related to 
the rights and propriety of a separate vote under the 
plan he was in entire sympathy with them. We find in 
his memorandum book for that session of the General 
Conference an outline speech which runs as follows: 

" Mr. President: I wish to second this call for a sep- 
arate vote of the laymen for the following reasons: 

"1. It is clearly their constitutional right. This call 



70 Principles op Church Government. 

for a division of the house is grounded in the organic 
law. This fundamental right of antagonism is insepa- 
rate, incarnate in the plan. This schism is constitu- 
tionally in the body. 

" 2. I am in favor of the call for the reason that every 
call for this separate vote will make more and more 
evident the fact that this principle of antagonism is 
found in the plan in its most objectionable form. The 
constitution of the Episcopal Convention makes it the 
duty of the laymen to vote separately, as also the duty 
of the clergy to vote separately; so that a separate 
vote awakens no suspicion. But with us, as the call for 
a separate vote is optional with one third of either or- 
der in the quorum, very naturally, necessarily, the 
thought is instantly suggested in the minds of the op- 
posing order that there must be a covert reason, some 
hidden purpose, some sinister motive, some selfish end; 
and so, suspicion, mistrust, jealousy, and heart-burnings 
are the inevitable outgrowth of the unchristian prin- 
ciple incorporate in the plan. O how different from 
the spiritual organism, the moral selfhood, of the Church 
of Jesus Christ, where the whole body, fitly framed to- 
gether and compacted by that which every joint sup- 
plieth, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord ! 

" 3. I am in favor of these separate calls because they 
will make manifest the sooner the unwise and undemo- 
cratic features of the ' plan ' — a minority in a popular 
assembly barring a majority. This is the quintessence 
of all absurdity in legislation — the perfection of all 
democratic shams, and yet this is called * equal repre- 
sentation.' 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 71 

"4. I am in favor of this call, for it may open the 
eyes of some to the amazing fact that under the present 
' plan ' a lay pope is possible in Methodism.* 

" 5. I favor this call because it will evidence more and 
more fully every time it is made the folly of inaugurat- 
ing a revolution in a popular body. When I stood here 
alone on the first of May endeavoring to stem the tide, 
I was thought demented when I demanded in the name 
of the laity, at the doors of this body, the fullest discus- 
sion, the calmest deliberation in such a change. And 
yet the laity are the very first to cry out against this 
dangerous spirit of antagonism. And again, when I 
demanded in the name of the entire ministry of the 
Church that the plan be thoroughly discussed before it 
should be enacted, I was thought to be a fit subject for 
bedlam; but, sir, the single call for a separate vote on 
Tuesday last extorted expressions from the lips of those 
who voted ' aye ' on the plan as innocently and as 
thoughtlessly as a flock of lambs would skip the bars 
into a slaughter pen. The echoes may not have reached 
as far as the bishop's chair, but I heard the words 
' revolution,' ' secession,' ' a disrupted Church,' etc., hissed 
through close-set teeth, and they came from the lips of 
ministers who, on the first of May, laid down at the feet 
of laymen the solemn trusts committed to them by the 
great Head of the Church. If these things be done in 
a green tree, what shall be done in a dry ? " 

Dr. Perrine's fears respecting the revolutionary ten- 
dency of the separate vote power have not been fully real- 
ized up to this date, but it is probably true that the call 
* See page 167. 



72 Principles of Church Government. 

for a separate vote has never been made without excit- 
ing more or less of the suspicion, mistrust, and jealousy 
to which he referred. 

Many serious objections to other features of the pres- 
ent plan of lay representation have appeared in various 
quarters. In March, 187b, the Religious Telescope said: 

" Let us examine lay representation as instituted in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. Its General Confer- 
ences will hereafter be composed of a minority of lay- 
men. But these laymen are chosen by an electoral col- 
lege which is elected by the quarterly conferences; 
and these quarterly conferences are largely composed 
of the appointees and nominees of the preacher in 
charge, as he is also an appointee at the absolute dis- 
cretion of the bishop presiding at the Annual Confer- 
ence. The stewards and trustees, composing a large 
part of the membership of those quarterly conferences, 
though elected by the Conference itself, are all the 
nominees of the itinerants; and the class-leaders are 
-the direct appointees of the preacher in charge. So 
from the foregoing it appears that while laymen com- 
pose the electoral college that chooses lay delegates to 
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the laymen of the quarterly conferences are 
mainly the appointees and nominees of the itinerant 
preachers. So that while that Church has a good por- 
tion of lay delegates in its General Conference, it has 
little or nothing of lay representation in the true sense 
of that term. The great body of the people of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church have almost no voice at all 
in the selection of those who compose the quarterly, 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 73 

Annual, or General Conferences of that denomination. 
Those delegates are the representatives of a chosen few, 
not of the masses of the Methodist people. Then let it 
be remembered that the majority of delegates to the 
Gener.il Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
are ministers elected by the Annual Conferences, which 
are composed exclusively of the itinerant preachers." 

About the same date the following appeared editori- 
ally in the New York Independent: 

"It is dimly believed by the uninstructed that the 
adoption of the principle of lay delegation by the Meth- 
odists gave to the laymen of that denomination some 
practical share in the administration of Church affairs. 
That belief rests, however, upon very slight founda- 
tions. To the Annual Conferences, where all the im- 
portant work of the denomination is done, they have 
not been admitted. When the session of the Annual 
Conference, which is held previous to the meeting of 
the General Conference, is assembled, a lay electoral 
convention, composed of delegates from the several 
churches ? is called at the same time and place. The 
laymen meet by themselves, and elect delegates to the 
General Conference; then, commonly, a place is made 
for them in the room where the Annual Conference is 
in session, and they walk in and are addressed by the 
bishop, to whom one of their number responds; after 
which they withdraw, and the work of the Conference, 
which has been interrupted by this interesting episode, 
proceeds. Their only relation to the working body of 
the Church consists in their being permitted, while the 
Conference is in session, to march up the aisle and then 



74 Principles of Church Government. 

march down again. In the General Conference, which 
meets once in four years, and which is the law-making 
body of the Church, the laymen will have a voice; in 
the Annual Conferences they have neither part nor 
lot." 

In its issue of October 19, 1872, The Methodist ex- 
pressed the opinion that w T e move too slowly in this 
whole matter of lay representation. It added: "The 
Southern Methodist Church moved long before us, and 
it gave, not only representation in the Annual as well 
as the General Conference, but it gave equal repre- 
sentation of the two classes in the latter. Our plan as 
thus far carried out is simply a 'shabby ' one, and can 
be tolerated only as initial to something better." 

It is worthy of note that Dr. Perrine anticipated all 
these objections and sought to provide against them. 
At the Brooklyn General Conference in 1872, nothing 
daunted by the fact that every member of that body 
had forsaken him in his opposition to the " plan," on 
May 9 he presented a memorial asking enlargement of 
the electoral basis of the present plan, so that all the 
membership outside of the quarterly conference might 
be represented in the body.* 

On the sixteenth day of the same session he offered a 
resolution providing for such an extension of the right 
of suffrage to all the adult members of our Church out- 
side of the quarterly conferences as should make the 
lay delegates in reality, what they have been only in 
name, the representatives of the people. He also asked 
for the admission of laymen into our Annual Confer- 
* Journal, 1872, p. 115. 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 75 

ences, especially to secure their invaluable services in 
the department of finance and other secularities.* 

Soon after the General Conference of 1876 closed, 
Dr. Perrine in some way became advised that the late 
venerable Rev. Dr. Lovick Pierce, of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, was in possession of some im- 
portant information from Bishop Asbury, communicated 
to him personally, and he wrote to him for a statement. 
Dr. Pierce replied as follows: 

"Sparta, Ga., August 9, 1876. 

"Dear Brother Perrine: Yours of August 2 
came to hand on the 7th. And although it was easily 
read, yet we could not be certain as to the name. It 
was to us a new name. And as to the Dally Christian 
Advocate referred to by you, it was not sent to me, so 
that I could not see the name in print, I am not sure 
that I am right now, but several good readers have 
made it out to be — Perrine. 

" Well, as to Bishop Asbury's talk to me, and about 
which you inquire. It took place in 1811. In those 
days it was made the presiding elder's duty, when the 
bishop in his annual round entered his district, to meet 
him and accompany him through it. I was a presiding 
elder, and was in the discharge of this duty when, in a 
long and lonely day's ride, he said to me, 'I judge the 
time will come when our people will ask a representative 
power in our legislative Conference; and if so, I judge 
it would be best to have two houses — a house of repre- 
sentatives made up of a mixture of laymen and local 
* Journal, 1872, p. 239. 



76 Principles or Church Government. 

preachers, and a house of old, well-tried, loyal itin- 
erants.' This house he called, in his own peculiar 
Asburian way, The Senators. His idea was to let 
every special department in the Church, made subject 
to any special law in the Discipline, be represented in 
its lawmaking council. And his safeguard for Amer- 
ican Episcopal Methodism was in the common sense of 
State legislation, that nothing could be law until the 
house passed it. His * Senators ' was to insure against 
wild theories from without, so that if our original 
economy was ever metamorphosed it should be at least 
by us. He was a wise man, and saw from the first that 
no policy that ignored the will of the people would be 
safe in America. Hence he would not be ordained 
bishop over American Methodists at Mr. Wesley's nom- 
ination until he could be chosen by the preachers, if in- 
deed he was their choice. 

"I do not recollect of his saying a word in disap- 
proval of such an event. His idea was to let the Amer- 
ican political policy in regard to direct representation 
into our legislative policy, with such constitutional 
guards as would render harmful changes impossible by 
mere legislation. I do not recollect Bishop Asbury's 
saying a word in reference to mixed up General Con- 
ferences of lay and clerical delegates, all voting to- 
gether as one simple mass. I think his ideal was, if the 
time ever came, two houses. 

" I will say now, this talk made a deep impression 
on my mind. I was young, and could not see why he 
should mention a matter of this kind to me. But next 
year was the inauguration of a delegated General Con- 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 77 

ference, itself a proof of the call for direct representa- 
tion, at that time applied only to all parts of our great 
itinerant pastoral field. Bishop Asbnry was a far-see- 
ing man, and looking into the probable future of Amer- 
ican Meihodism he saw it to be probable that the 
Church he wished to preserve intact might be rent in 
twain at this point. And the going off of the Prot- 
estant Methodist Church in 1829 was largely upon this 
ground — what they called mutual rights. 

" But lay delegation in law-making bodies is now a 
passion, and must be made a fashion. As to our move 
in this matter — and I think we were foremost — it was 
an out-and-out ministerial contribution. It was not 
even asked for by a single layman in all the Church 
that ever came to my knowledge. But, like the dear 
old bishop, we were sure it would come. We could see 
no good reason why it should be refused, and deemed 
it wiser to give it than it would be, under a demand for 
it, to grant it. We deemed it best to make the number 
equal. So far, we are greatly pleased, and look upon a 
wise lay delegation in a General Conference as very 
conservative. 

"And now for my own opinion as to the two-house 
idea : I think all together, and all vote together, is 
better. A union in Church legislation that leads to 
unity in Church affections, aims, and objects is the most 
conserving policy. If necessity makes it wise to know 
who is who, the call for yeas and nays will do it. You 
must excuse the scribble in this letter ; I am old and 
nervous, cannot write fair. 

" Very sincerely yours, L. Pierce." 



78 Principles of Church Government. 

Dr. Perrine promptly responded to the above letter, 
thanking its author for the priceless information it con- 
tained in respect to Bishop Asbury's views, and sug- 
gesting the hope that Dr. Pierce himself might find 
reason to change his mind as to the advisability of two 
houses in Methodist Episcopal Church legislation. He 
also forwarded to Dr. Pierce certain documents con- 
taining a few of his arguments on the subject in hand. 
These had their desired effect, as the sequel will show. 
Dr. Pierce wrote again as follows : 

"Sparta. Ga., August 24, 1S76. 

"Dear Brother Perrine: Yours of August 15 is 
in hand and has been read twice over with much in- 
terest. The value at which you take it is compensation 
enough, although writing is onerous to me at all times, 
especially so when the thermometer is ranging as high 
as 98 almost daily. But I hasten my reply. In as far 
as my expressed opinion is concerned, it was only given 
as my opinion unasked. If therefore you should ever 
think it needful to publish Bishop Asbury's conversa- 
tion to me, feel at full liberty to do so without any 
reference to my opinion. It was incidentally men- 
tioned as between us alone. My name is too humble 
to give my opinion weight in a matter like this. 

" Let me, if you please, caution you a little. It must 
not be said on my authority that Bishop Asbury ex- 
pressed any desire for such a reorganization of the 
Church then. But this was his apprehension, that from 
our form of government it would come to pass that 
our people, as well in Church as in State, would desire, 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 79 

perhaps demand, a direct representation in the law- 
making assembly of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
And my opinion was, and is, that Bishop Asbury's 
opinion was that if the time ever did come it ought to 
be accorded, and if accorded how best to do it was 
what occupied his mind. Hence, as I understood him, 
he threw out his two-house idea — a house of represen- 
tatives made up of laymen and local preachers ; his 
idea was that if ever this re-modeled form of Methodist 
ecclesiasticism came to pass every department of the 
Church which required special legislation should be 
represented in this branch of our General Conference. 
Next, a senatorial house made up exclusively of itiner- 
ant ministers chosen either by seniority or ballot. Here 
again came in his grand idea, that an itinerant ministry 
must of course demand and have special legislation, it 
being in itself a grand specialty, so much so that if 
ever the time came when a distribution of legislative 
power must be made between clergy and laity this 
senatorial house of traveling preachers must remain. 
There never can be a real itinerant ministry only where 
the legislation is for itself and by itself, or safely under 
its control. Hence Bishop Asbury's wise conception, 
that if the time ever came when legislative power must 
be divided between clergy and laity it should be so 
done as to make a joint agreement between the two 
houses indispensable to its becoming a binding law on 
any one division of accountable subjects. 

" You inquire if I caught your idea right — whether 
Bishop Asbury's idea was for special legislation ; as, for 
instance, the lower house for all merely secular or tinan- 



80 Principles of Church Government. 

cial interests and his clerical senate for its moral disci- 
pline. I am glad you ask this question, for although I 
cannot answer it as a settled fact in his mind, I can 
safely say what was my impression then, and has been 
ever since, that his idea was, as State legislatures in 
their two houses might originate a bill in either house, 
amend it in either, discuss it in either, but if it passed 
into a law it must be by ail option of both houses. 

'* It has always been a strange occurrence to me that 
Bishop Asbury should have made this wonderful com- 
munication to me. sixty-five years ago this September, 
and that I have been spared so many years, it seems, 
to declare this wonderful conception of that pioneer 
bishop of Episcopal Methodism at the only time I 
think in which it has ever been called for by pending 
issues. 

This two-house General Conference is going to be 
both a question and the question. I am not through 
your argument yet. I am well pleased with your views 
as far as I am sure I get your meaning ; I am sorry 
and sore every time a sensible man says any thing that 
leaves me in doubt where Elliott's Great Secession 
is quoted, whether it is in approval or in condemnation. 
Any one that had been present, and heard and seen what 
I did in Dr. Elliott, could never cease to wonder and 
to grieve that he should ever write a book and call it 
by this false name. We were never a secession, and 
never intend to be. We intend to be genuine Episco- 
pal Methodists. I love to correspond with my Northern 
Methodist (brethren), but would not with any one that 
would call me a Secessionist. Write me if I am misled 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 81 

in any way. Would not be surprised if we all became 
two-house Methodists at last. 

" I am yours in brotherly love, L. Pierce." 

The next and final letter of Dr. Pierce shows him to 
have become a thorough convert to Dr. Perrine's 
views. It reads as follows : 

" Sparta, Ga., August 30, 1876. 

"Dear Brother Perrine: Allow me first to con- 
gratulate the North and the South on the success of our 
Fraternal Commission. Such easy harmony was proof 
of what makes it best of all, which is, that both sides 
had made peace in their hearts before, and only wanted 
some suitable way to give it formal expression. The 
commission idea was the right one. I wonder if there 
will be any one, North or South, silly enough to enter 
a caveat. I hope not. If we are God's building this 
fraternal union will be the beginning of a new era in 
Episcopal Methodism. We ought in some way to cele- 
brate the event as the great moral issue of our national 
centennial. 

" But my object in this writing is to say I have read 
all your speeches on your proposed two-house General 
Conference plan, and on your main ground — a safer leg- 
islation — I am a thorough convert. Nothing has wor- 
ried me more in my General Conference life than a hur- 
ried, excited legislation in the last week of a tedious 
session. In a word, to see a Methodist General Confer- 
ence get into a muss, like a partisan legislature, seeking 
to defeat or to carry through a measure by parliament- 



82 Principles of Church Government. 

ary legerdemain, was a mortification to me hard to bear. 
I can say for myself, what few of my brethren can say, 
I have never seen the time yet when to get home made 
me willing to hurry through an Annual or a General 
Conference. I am satisfied a two-house General Con- 
ference would do safer legislation than the present. I 
would like the triennial feature, although out here some 
would like to jump to once in seven years, just because 
of too much legislation. But it is really hurried, in- 
considerate legislation that does the mischief. Two 
houses is the only relief I can see ; and that would not 
be perfect. If there was any way by which a joint 
board could make out a calendar of resolutions and 
proposed revisals within the first week, that might be 
discussed and decided as worthy of consideration, it 
would greatly aid in wise deliberation. I am not sure 
about your organization plan. I am not prepared either 
to adopt or amend just now. 

" But how is it that there was so much speaking by 
you in favor of your views, with such clear and unde- 
niable proofs of the wisdom and even necessity of two 
houses for good legislation, and so much mercurial sen- 
sibility displayed, and not a man that I have seen 
that even attempted to show any fallacy in your argu- 
ment ? Your minority might have been, and as I think 
you think were, the mental strength of the house ; and 
if so, the triumph of your scheme will only be a ques- 
tion of time. 

"Bishop Asbury's forecastings about the future of 
American Methodism, as far as were hinted to me, 
were close by prophetic inspiration. And as to our 



The Lay Delegation Movement. 83 

future, I hope we will respectfully and carefully turn 
upon one common plan as to leading Methodistic feat- 
ures; and, as lay representation is now a fixed fact, I hope 
this two-house General Conference will be calmly con- 
sidered, and the Lord will provide for it if it is in any 
wise his ultimatum. 

" O for peace, for fraternal love, for oneness in all 
great missionary work ! It ill becomes us in foreign 
fields to seem to be setting up two Episcopal Method- 
isms. Let us be one in sweet accord. 

" Yours ever, L. Piekce." 



84 Principles of Church Government. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OP THE PEOPLE. 

The real, dogmatic basis of the proposed change in 
the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church may be 
said to have been the doctrine of the " priesthood of 
the people." This was the stand-point from which the 
responsibility of the laity was most vigorously asserted 
from the pulpit and through the religious press. 

Properly stated and guarded, this doctrine is rudi- 
mental, rich, and glorious. It is one phase of the grand 
idea on which the great Reformation under Luther was 
projected and carried forward. The primary principle 
in that Reformation was the doctrine of " justification 
by faith;" the secondary principle was that of the 
" priesthood of the people." 

It has been claimed that the only scriptural use of the 
word "priest" or "priesthood," as it respects Chris- 
tianity, is in reference to the common priesthood of 
Christian men and the "high priesthood" of Christ; 
that Paul is careful, even in regard to the latter, to 
show that it is peculiar, is not according to the priest- 
hood of Aaron or the Levites, but altogether unique — 
"after the order of Melchizedek;" that Christianity 
knows no technical or clerical priesthood — none other 
than this common priestly function and dignity of all 
regenerated souls, under the sacerdotal headship of 



Doctrine of the Priesthood of the People. 85 

Christ; that it has its ministry — its divinely called 
and commissioned administrators of instruction and dis- 
cipline; that it clothes all its true children with pon- 
tifical robes, and commands all of them, as "a royal 
priesthood," to live, work, and suffer for the Church, 
the kingdom of God on earth. 

Aristotle's definition of a priest was, one " presiding 
over things relating to the gods ; " and this corresponds 
quite closely with that of Paul: "Every high-priest, 
being taken from among men, is appointed for men in 
things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts 
and sacrifices for sins." Before the Mosaic law was 
given priesthood corresponded more closely to its pres- 
ent status in the Church than it did under the law. 
There was then less of the intermediary and ceremonial, 
more of the openness and directness which should char- 
acterize the approach of pious people to God. Thus we 
are told that Abel presented his own offerings to the 
Lord. "He brought of the firstlings of his flock, and 
of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect to Abel 
and his offering." And of Noah we read that he 
"builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every 
clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt 
offerings on the altar." Abraham nlso '-built an altar 
and called upon the name of the Lord." Melchizedek, 
king of Salem, also "brought bread and wine; and he 
was the priest of the most high God." But when the 
Aaronic priesthood was established under the law of 
Moses the priests became a professional order, and were 
alone authorized to offer sacrifices. Thus Aaron bore 
the judgment of the children of Israel upon his ' heart, 



86 Principles of Church Government. 

and their names upon his breastplate, when he went in 
unto the holy place for a memorial before the Lord 
continually. Mediation was the essential idea of the 
whole Hebrew priesthood. Its specific object was to 
mediate between God and man, and to speak to the 
latter in the name of the former. The priests were 
clothed with representative power to represent the peo- 
ple in the presence of Jehovah, and to prepare the way 
by which they themselves might approach God. As an 
educational measure this arrangement served a noble 
purpose. It impressed upon the minds of God's people 
the necessity of a sacrifice, and paved the way for com- 
prehension of the great Sacrifice to be offered once for 
all, after which the sacerdotal priesthood should pass 
away and the people should themselves enter the holy 
of holies and serve as their own priests. This was the 
significance of the rent veil in the temple when Jesus 
died. The great sacrifice was then offered, and all true 
believers were made kings and priests unto God, having 
permission to enter the holy place and offer their sac- 
rifices of praise and thanksgiving. Thus the shadow 
disappeared when the substance came. As a mediator 
Jesus Christ is the only priest; as servants of God true 
Christians are all priests, one having no advantage over 
another in the privileges of the sanctuary and the serv- 
ices of a holy life. No hint of any priest, or any officer 
answering to that description, can be found in the ^Sew 
Testament Church. As a religious order priesthood 
perished w'$h Judaism. The priesthood of the class 
was merged into the priestly character of Jesus Christ 
and that of the whole 4iseipleship. Paul could now 



Doctrine of the Priesthood of the People. 87 

exhort: "Seeing then that we have a great high-priest, 
that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the son of God, 
let us hold fast our profession. Let us come boldly unto 
the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and 
find grace to help in time of need." And Peter could 
now say: "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priest- 
hood, a holy nation, a peculiar people." And John on 
Patmos, as he listened to the everlasting song, could 
take up the strain: "Thou art worthy, for thou wast 
slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, and 
hast made us unto our God kings and priests." As a 
high-priest Jesus sweeps the whole compass of human 
existence. Back of the Jewish economy, back of Aaron 
and all his train, his representative office goes, for in 
" being made perfect he became the author of eternal 
salvation unto all them that obey him; called of God 
a high-priest after the order of Melchiz ^dek." He is 
openly and directly the world's High-priest, and all who 
believe in him constitute a holy priesthood, having a 
spiritual reign upon the earth. Thus under the Gospel 
is fulfilled more fully the divine declaration to Israel: 
"If ye will obey my voice, then shall ye be to me a 
kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Exod. xix, 6. 

It therefore follows that, in the old Jewish sense of 
the term, Christian pastors are not priests, at least not 
any more so than their fellow-Christians. Their office 
is not to mediate, but to proclaim the Mediator ; not 
to atone, but to preach the atonement. As ministers 
of the Gospel they are successors of the prophets * and 

* The Church at Jerusalem had its prophets. See Acts xi, 27; 
xv, 32; xxi, 10; Matt, x, 4i. .... 



88 Principles of Church Government. 

ruling elders of Israel, rather than of the priests, though 
in a metaphorical sense they might perhaps properly 
be styled priests. As leaders of the people (so consti- 
tuted by the call of God and the approval of the 
Church) it is their special function "to offer up spiritual 
sacrifices of prayer, praise, thanksgiving," etc. They 
are taken from among men to offer up to the "un- 
bloody sacrifice," as it was anciently called, the com- 
memorative sacrifice of the blood of Christ. In the 
matter of drawing near to God they possess no advan- 
tages over their fellow-Christians. They minister 
because called to it in the order of the Church. They 
are preachers and teachers appointed by the Holy 
Ghost as overseers * of the interests of God's kingdom, 
and to feed the flock of Christ and make known the 
living Saviour to dying men. Theirs is a happy, holy, 
useful, and necessary office, but in point of spiritual 
privileges its incumbents are not lifted one iota above 
the high plane which all Christians may occupy as con- 
stituent members of the royal priesthood. 

But the relation of each royal priest to his God is 
one thing, and his relation to his children, to the teacher 
of his children, to the assessor of his property, or the 
steward of his class, to the governor of the State or the 
pastor of his church, to his candidate for Congress or 
for the bishopric is quite another. 

"Doubtless," said Dr. Perrine, "all these relations 
should be purified and seasoned with grace; but we 
submit that they are not priestly relations, and that his 

* The designation " Those that are over you " is first met with in 
the earliest of Paul's epistles. 1 Thess. v, 12. 



Doctrine of the Priesthood of the People. 89 

duties in them are not priestly functions. The drivers of 
a stage coach or of a steam-engine might be good men, 
both spiritual and devout, but nevertheless driving 
stage or steam horses could scarcely be called priestly 
functions. The barber might be a very devout man 
and a very worthy member of Christ's spiritual Church, 
nevertheless but very few would ever regard the func- 
tion of clipping the beard and dressing the hair as 
especially priestly. This principle has evidently been 
carried too far." 

And so with regard to each individual royal priest in 
the congregation. " We must draw a broad and con- 
spicuous line of demarkation," said Dr. Perrine, " be- 
tween their priestly function of entering the holiest and 
offering up spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus 
Christ, and the unpriestly outward duties of regulating 
the furnace, renting the pews, electing the steward*, 
appointing the pastors, or legislating for the Church. 
The whole external structure of Church organization, 
or body ecclesiastic, as such, in our judgment, is as dis- 
tinct from the priestly function of the soul ascending 
in spiritual sacrifices to God as the anatomy of Aaron's 
heart, stomach, or brain was from his act of offering 
up of the bleeding lamb or incense upon the altar." 

Not with the utmost consistency, therefore, did the 
advocates of lay delegation urge the doctrine of the 
priesthood of the people as the true scriptural basis for 
the proposed reform. We know that this doctrine in 
their hands was tremendously effective. The min- 
istry and laity gave earnest heed to its promulgation. 
Without carefully considering its true significance and 



90 Principles of Church Government. 

bearing, they hailed its special application to the lay 
movement as something new under the sun, and having 
in it the promise of unbounded inspiration to Christian 
work and effectiveness. Said one of the religious jour- 
nals of the period: "Let our business men learn that 
they have no more right to use their talents and suc- 
cess for merely selfish advantage than the pastors in 
their altars, the city missionaries who may be starving 
on their stinted contributions, or the missionaries whom 
they send to the ends of the earth have to be equally 
selfish, and we shall change the whole condition of the 
religious world. And in doing so we shall but restore 
primitive Christianity ; for the ' priesthoood of the 
people,' as taught by the reformers, was but the re- 
vival of an apostolic idea — the idea that all men who, 
by regeneration, enter the kingdom of God on earth 
must live, work, and, if need be, die, for the interests 
of that kingdom ; that whatever difference of function 
or mode of work there may be, as between preacher 
and layman, and whatever difference in the degree of 
responsibility, there is no difference in the principle 
and certainty of that responsibility ; that the one talent 
will be held accountable as well as the two or five ; 
that it was, in the Master's great lesson, not the man of 
superiority, nor he of mediocrity, but he of inferiority, 
he of the one talent, rather than of the two or five, who 
was lost and cast into ' outer darkness.' " All very 
true, but really what had this to do with God's plan 
and teachings respecting the government of the 
Church ? We shall see. 

It so happened that among all the extremists who 



DOCTRINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE PEOPLE. 91 

urged this doctrine as the ground of reform in the 
government of the Methodist Episcopal Church none 
were more prominent, more eloquent, or more influen- 
tial than the great historian of Methodism, Dr. Abel 
Stevens. 

The poor man who suddenly acquires wealth be- 
comes the typical rich man ; the obscure subject who, 
on the wave of popular excitement, is exalted to high 
office becomes the typical ruler; the conservative man, 
once changed in his opinions, becomes the typical 
radical. Such a radical, upon this subject at least, was 
Dr. Stevens. 

"I venture to claim a special right to speak upon 
this subject," said he at the opening of his memorable 
speech in favor of lay delegation in St. Paul's Church, 
Newark, N. J., Wednesday evening, February 26, 1869, 
as reported in The Methodist. 

" A special right to speak ? " Why ? " For what I 
think will be considered by wise men a valid reason — 
the fact that I have changed my opinions upon it. . . . 
I was born into the Church in the time of the old radi- 
cal controversy, and was educated to believe lay repre- 
sentation an inadmissible heresy. Practically, it was 
proscribed. I doubt very much whether a young man 
could then have got admission into an Annual Confer- 
ence if it was understood that he was a 'radical' upon 
this question. Thus trained, I accepted the theory of 
the Church, and in later years defended it with my 
pen, but never with an original argument. The cita- 
tions from my writings, made by my opponents, are 
only the arguments of our old authorities, sincerely re- 



92 Principles of Church Government. 

uttered by me in my pupilage. I changed my opinion 
before the controversy revived in the Church." 

But what were Dr. Stevens's opinions now ? He had 
a great many, and forcible ones, too, but our space and 
occasion will here admit of only such paragraphs as 
Dr. Perrine considered especially objectionable. 

" Not that we are utterly opposed," said Dr. Perrine 
in one of his able articles in reply to Dr. Stevens ; "not 
that we are utterly opposed to the admission of laymen 
into the councils of the Church on any conditions, not 
that we are opposed at all to their admission on script- 
ural conditions, but because we believe the fundamental 
positions of the speech to be fundamentally erroneous 
— scripturally, logically, and historically false ; and be- 
cause we believe its eloquent heresies from their fun- 
damental character to be calculated to work wide-spread 
evil in the Church of God." 

The first general postulate in Dr. Stevens's speech 
was that " the spirit and genius of primitive Christian- 
ity justify, not to say demand, this improvement (the 
plan of lay delegation) in our Church system." He 
affirmed "the essential equality of all saints in the 
kingdom of God on earth." "We hear a great deal 
nowadays," he said, "about the theocratical nature of 
Church government, its divine rights and prerogatives. 
You must not reason from state governments about 
Church government, we are told: they lack analogy. 
The assumption is contrary to the whole tenor of the 
New Testament, and the whole evidence of contem- 
porary history. 

He said again : " The Lutheran Church refuse to call 



Doctrine of the Priesthood of the People. 93 

their clerical grades i orders ; ' tbey recognize them 
simply as offices. They thus assert my general posi- 
tion : The essential equality of all saints in the king- 
dom of God; the priesthood of the people; the priest- 
hood of the sexton yonder at the door, if he is a devout 
man, as well of the teacher or minister here in the 
altar; the priesthood of the chorister yonder and all 
around him, if they are real disciples; the priesthood 
of the mechanic and farmer — of all. Whoever enters 
into the Church a living Christian should be recognized 
from the pews and from the pulpit as arranged in pon- 
tifical robes, ministering in the Church, in his home, in his 
workshop, every- where, in the common, divine service of 
an evangelical life." He uttered these sentences : " All 
are divinely called." The " ministerial call is essentially 
the same as that of other Christian functions." "The 
government of the Church is indeed a theocracy, but 
in no other sense than the great ethical principles of 
law and order in the State are theocratic." " There is 
no other basis for ecclesiastical rights and government 
than the general ethical basis of all government." 
" Church government, according to the apostolic Church, 
is left to Christian expediency — is not in any given 
form obligatory — is contingent." " It is a well-ascer- 
tained fact, admitted among the best ecclesiastical 
historians, that the system of apostolic Church govern- 
ment was copied from the synagogue. And this is a- 
most significant fact. There were two ecclesiastical 
exponents before then. There was the Jewish Church 
proper, with its grand Levitical system, ordained of 
God and prescribed by Moses, where the Aaronic 



9-i Principles of Church Government. 

priesthood officiated. Besides this, or secondary to it, 
was the synagogue, or provincial worship. The syna- 
gogue, with all its services, is mentioned in the writings 
of Moses. It was never enjoined; it sprung up from 
local expediency. The priests officiated at the temple; 
but the general expounders of the manuscript law — the 
popular preachers of the day — were in the synagogue." 
"The primitive Christians, or Jews, had been accus- 
tomed to certain simple ecclesiastical usages, founded 
in practical convenience, but without a word of divine 
prescription. They copied them into their new or- 
ganization." " Ordination was a local ceremony of 
the synagogue, designating men to office by a decent 
form, and, I repeat, is unmentioned in the writings of 
Moses." " The government of the primitive Church 
was not copied, I re-affirm, from the Levitical system; 
it had no divine prescription, and has no divine in- 
junction. It was all copied from the Jewish provincial 
customs, and simply because these were expedient, 
decent, impressive; Christianity thus started untram- 
meled for its career over all the planet and down all the 
ages." " The conclusion, then, is this — that Church 
government, in the light of primitive Christianity, is a 
matter of expediency. This generalization is historic- 
ally, logically, and indefeasibly true." " We preachers 
of the Gospel are only the executive officers of the 
common priesthood. As all cannot preach together 
without confusion, the Church selects those most com- 
petent, and virtually says: ' Go yon up and do the 
talking in the pulpit, and we will do our talking in 
the vestry, the class-meeting, the Sunday-school, the 



Doctrine of the Priesthood of the People. 95 

home.' That is the doctrine of the priesthood of the 
people. But here comes in an objection that I am very 
much mortified to have to refer to, both for its logic 
and its invasion of the highest right of the Christian 
life by an unfounded discrimination—the objection 
that the ministry has a ' divine call.' To be sure it has. 
Don't let any man misunderstand here or misrepresent 
me elsewhere. * Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel,' 
said Paul; and so say all these pastors around me to- 
night. I do not deny, I do assert the divine call 
to the ministry ; but those who assert it as against 
this reform limit the idea and leave its length and 
breadth unasserted. The Holy Ghost calls me to 
preach in the Church; therefore am I to govern the 
Church? I don't see that logic; but let us admit it. 
Have I, the preacher, the Holy Ghost alone ? Does 
the Holy Ghost call the minister, alone, to his duty ? 
Is there one of these priests of the people, whose right 
I have expounded, who has not the Holy Ghost, and 
cannot have it in as blessed a plenitude as any clerical 
priest, high-priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or pope ? 
Not one of them, if I understand the New Testament. 
And when the Christian world comes again to this posi- 
tion, when the idea of the universal and royal priesthood 
of the people is restored to the consciousness of Chris- 
tendom, it will resume its apostolic mightiness and 
victories, and be such a Church as Christ designed it to 
be. No man is a Christian without the Holy Ghost." 
" On the logic of the opponents of lay delegation, if a 
call to the ministry implies a call to govern the Church, 
the local ministry should be sent to the Annual and 



96 Principles of Church Government. 

General Conferences, and our Church government 
would virtually be in the hands of the local ministry ! 
There would be a majority of about one third of the 
General Conference in the power of the local preachers. 
What a curious state of things that would be! I would 
not wish it — not at all. I do not want the local minis- 
try to control the Church. I do not want the traveling 
ministry to control the Church. I wish the Church to 
control itself — the whole royal priesthood governing, 
with merely distinctions of office for expediency, but 
all divinely called. That is the doctrine." 

Over against this position as the ground-work of 
Church government Dr. Perrine urged the following 
distinct propositions: 

" 1. In the apostolic Church a call to preach was a 
special vocation limited and isolated in the name of 
God. 

" 2. Authority to rule or govern in the apostolic 
Church Avas a special commission limited and isolated 
in the name of God. 

"3. These two differing commissions were distinct- 
ively given to the twelve apostles in the name of God. 

" 4. The commission to govern in the primitive 
Church was conveyed by the inspired apostles to the 
ordained preaching elders who succeeded them in the 
name of God. 

" 5. This scriptural rule of the elders called of the 
Holy Ghost, and approved first of the people by " show 
of hands," and secondly of the presbytery by " impo- 
sition of hands," is of perpetual obligation and is 
neither hierarchy, High Churchism, papacy, nor eccle- 



DOCTRINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD OE THE PEOPLE. 97 

siastical oppression, but simply New Testament theoc- 
racy, genuine Protestantism, God-honored Methodism 
— Methodism triumphant in the light of the nine- 
teenth century and in keeping with the free spirit of 
American institutions." 

In arguing these several propositions Dr. Perrine ac- 
knowledged the beauty of the doctrine of " the priest- 
hood of God's people." "As set forth in the Script- 
ures," said he, "the doctrine is beautiful, admirable, 
magnificent ! We believe in it, thank God for it, and 
sincerely compassionate the soul that has ever caught 
a solitary glimpse of its transcendent excellence who 
does not glory in it." " Would God," he added, " not 
only that all the Lord's people were prophets, but that 
the Lord would put his Spirit upon all men ; that all 
the people were of the priesthood of believers! " 

"But here," he observed, "is a new and unheard-of 
doctrine, and startling definitions and novel applica- 
tions, denying a special divine call to the holy ministry, 
and asserting the general commission of the priesthood 
of the people to do all the ' talking,' 'teaching,' i preach- 
ing,' and c governing ' in the Church of God. Its nov- 
elty provokes our attention and curiosity. Let us turn 
it about a little, and justly admeasure its pretensions." 

Having now presented the main questions to be dis- 
cussed, and the occasion for their discussion, the Editor 
will here step aside. In all succeeding chapters, there- 
fore, Dr. Perrine is the first person speaking. 
7 



98 Principles or Church Government. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE SPECIAL DIVINE CALL TO THE MINISTRY. 

While the specific propositions enumerated in the 
foregoing chapter do not commit us to any specified form 
of Church government, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or 
even of Methodism itself, nevertheless they embrace all 
the general principles of Church polity essential to this 
discussion. Let us now examine the first: that of a 
special divine call to the Christian ministry. 

I. It is proposed by the proclamation of the general 
"priesthood of the people" to bar the admission of a 
special priesthood of the ministry. The coincidence 
and harmony of the general and special under the 
Mosaic dispensation appear to be forgotten or ignored. 
Such texts as the following addressed to Israel under 
the old regime appear never to have been read : " Now, 
therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed and keep 
my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto 
me above all people, and ye shall be unto me a kingdom 
of priests and a holy nation." Exod. xix, 5, 6. Did this 
priesthood of the people preclude a special priesthood 
in the time of Moses ? Was there no tribe of Levi ? 
No house of Aaron ? 

The modern objection to a special priesthood lacks 
the charm of originality. It dates much farther back 
than the dawn of the present discussion. It was not 



Special Divine Call to the Ministry. 99 

first pronounced in New Jersey. " Korah, son of Izhar, 
Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On, the sons of 
Peleih, raised the same objection against a "special 
priesthood," for the same identical reasons. 

"And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the 
children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the 
assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown, 
and they gathered themselves together against Moses and 
against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much 
upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy. Where- 
fore, then, lift ye up yourselves above the congregation 
of the Lord ? " Num. xvi, 2, 3. This has the ring of so 
many high-sounding speeches and sonorous editorials 
on " the priesthood of the people," that we find it diffi- 
cult on reading the above to shake off the impression 
that all this must have occurred in the noon of the 
nineteenth century, and not many centuries since — in 
the days of the first grand lay movement on the borders 
of the wilderness of Sin! 

Paul, at the breaking of the Gospel dispensation, was 
obliged to encounter the same objection, and most sat- 
isfactorily has he taken care of it, though not exactly 
in the style in which its first advocates were disposed 
of; yet we have as clear, if not as stunning, an exhibi- 
tion of the mind of God. 

In 1 Cor. xii, 7, the great apostle tells us that " the 
manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man." 
This is his doctrine of the priesthood of the people. 
But what does he infer? That there is no difference 
among us but of office for convenience ? We are 
"happy" that he may once more "speak for himself:" 



100 Principles of Church Government. 

" Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 
There are differences of administration, but the same 
Lord ; and there are diversities of operations, but it is 
the same God who worketh all in all. . . . For to one 
is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to 
another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit, to 
another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, 
to another discerning of spirits," etc. But all these 
worketh the self-same Spirit, dividing, limiting, and 
isolating "to every man severally as he will." "God 
hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily 
prophets, thirdly teachers," etc. "Are all apostles? 
Are all prophets ? Are all teachers ? " 

If the views of the extremists respecting the bearing 
of the doctrine of the " priesthood of the people" are cor- 
rect, the passage should read about as follows: "Now 
there are no diversities of gifts, but it is the same Spirit; 
there are no differences of administration, for it is the 
same Lord; and there are no diversities of operation, for 
it is the same God who worketh all in all. For to every 
one is given, by the Spirit, the word of wisdom, and to 
every one the word of knowledge by the same Spirit, and 
to every one the working of miracles, to every one proph- 
ecy, to every one discerning of spirits, etc. ; for all these 
worketh the self -same Spirit, not dividing, limiting, or 
isolating to any man, ' severally as he will.' God hath 
set every one in the Church as apostles, prophets, 
teachers, etc. All are apostles; all are prophets; all are 
teachers, etc." Away with such an interpretation of the 
eternal Word ! A doctrine thus expounded has no place 
between the lids of the sacred book. 



Special Divide Call to the Ministry. 101 

In another letter Paul reiterates the doctrine of " or- 
ders" in the Church with sacred emphasis. Of Him 
"who ascended up on high" it is affirmed that "he 
gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evan- 
gelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfect- 
ing of the saints," etc. Eph. iv, 11. "Having, then, 
gifts differing according to the grace given unto us, 
whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the 
proportion of faith, or ministry, let us wait on our min- 
istering, or he that teacheth on teaching." Rom. xii, 
6, 7. Would our opponents infer from these texts that 
the ministerial call was not " limited " or " isolated ? " 
That " the preachers of the Gospel " in these days of 
"primitive equality " were "merely the executive offi- 
cers of the common priesthood ? " Methodists will, 
doubtless, for some time to come, continue to believe 
that the exact nature of any specific " call " will be as 
the "gifts," "differing," and the specific character of 
the "gift," as the "grace given," and yet, as hearty 
indorsers of the true doctrine of the "priesthood of 
the people," they are disposed to believe that " the 
grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared 
unto all men;" that "the manifestation of the Spirit is 
given to every man," and that " according to their 
faith " " laymen may have the Holy Ghost in as blessed 
a plenitude as clerical priest, high-priest, bishop, arch- 
bishop, cardinal, or pope;" and most Methodists, we 
think, will be quite likely to conclude that it is not the 
quantity of the Spirit given, but the specific character 
of the " call," that constitutes the nature and limits — the 
full measure — of our several responsibilities. 



102 Principles of Church Government. 

"Does the Holy Ghost call the minister alone to his 
duty ? " Of course not. The Holy Ghost will, doubt- 
less, impress upon the mind of every spiritual man 
at least the following important particulars: 1. That 
his calling should be pursued " honestly " (Rom. xii, 
17); 2. "Religiously" (Rom. xii, 11); 3. "Diligent- 
ly" (Prov. xxii, 29); 4. "Persistently" (1 Cor. vii, 
20); 5. "Peaceably" (1 Thess. iv, 11); that it should 
be the calling in which he could accomplish most for 
God, the Church, his family and himself, and espe- 
cially one v f or which he had most natural adaptations 
and qualifications. But can any deny that some men, 
in their exceeding versatility, have equal adaptations 
and qualifications for a great diversity of callings ? that 
they would excel in whatever they should attempt? 
Will any man affirm that the Holy Ghost would 
call this man or that among the laity to this or that 
particular profession so peculiarly and urgently that 
he must say as emphatically as ever St. Paul did, " Woe 
is me if I " drive not the plow, plane, pegs, stage, or the 
steam-horse? Woe is me if I peddle not pumps, pans, 
pills, or patent rights ? Preposterous! Yet this seems 
to follow logically from the position that "all are divine- 
ly called, and that ' the call ' to the Christian ministry is 
essentially the same as to other Christian vocations." 

2. The chief stumbling stone in the way of this mod- 
ern logic is the entire misapprehension of the doctrine 
of the priesthood of the people as set forth in the Script- 
ures. As we understand these extremists, they urge 
this " priesthood " in favor of this most singular postu- 
late : that all the laity — all church members, of course — 



Special Divine Call to the Ministey. 103 

all men, women, and children, are divinely constituted 
"teachers " in the Church of God! 

Has it never occurred to our able advocates of the 
" pontifical " prerogatives of the people that " teach- 
ing" was merely incidental to the sacred " priest- 
hood ? " that it constituted no part of their proper 
functional service ? During the whole period of the 
'* theocracy " teaching by the priests was quite as ex- 
ceptional and as unofficial as were the " sacrifices " by 
the prophets Samuel and Elijah, or the " offering of 
burnt offerings " by the kings David and Solomon. In 
later times, when ignorance abounded to an amazing 
extent, it might have been necessary for the priests to 
have explained to a gross and benighted people the 
simple significance of the various sacrifices and services 
of their ritual. 

The duty of instructing the people in the precepts of 
the law of God was at first devolved by express com- 
mand upon the elders of Israel or upon the heads of 
families (Deut. vi, 7), and afterward was taken up by 
the scribes, or " sons of the prophets," whose ideal was 
well expressed in the declaration of the inspired Ezra 
(vii, 10), "to seek the law of the Lord and do it, and 
to teach in Israel statutes and judgments." " Upon the 
whole," says Godwin (Jewish Antiquities, p. 240), " the 
scribes were the preaching clergy among the Jews; and 
while the priest attended the sacrifices, they (the 
scribes) instructed the people." 

The priests and Levites, during the continuance of 
the " theocracy," were ministers both to the Church 
and State, but they were not like the "priests" under 



104 Principles of Church Government. 

the Gospel, teachers of the people ; not being instruct- 
ors of the people, in the ordinary sense of the term, 
" they were not required to dwell in the cities and vil- 
lages occupied by the rest of the community, but dwelt 
in cities of their own, a circumstance which of itself 
proves that they were not public instructors." 

Yet our opponents affirm that " we preachers of the 
Gospel are but the executive officers of the common 
priesthood. As all cannot preach together without con- 
fusion, the Church selects those most competent, and 
virtually says, * Go up and do the talking in the pulpit, 
and we will do our talking,' " etc. ! 

Equally preposterous is the claim of the democratic 
rights of government in the Church of God, based on 
the scriptural doctrine of the " priesthood " of the peo- 
ple, which claim we may be allowed especially to notice 
just here. 

Under the old economy the Levitical caste never 
claimed to govern the nation. Levi was not the ruling 
tribe; Aaron was not the ruling spirit. Yet the effort 
is now made to found the government of the Church 
upon the priesthood of the people. " We wish the 
Church," says Dr. Stevens, "to control itself. The 
whole royal priesthood governing with merely distinc- 
tions of office for expediency, but all divinely called ! 
That is the doctrine ! ! " 

"All divinely called." True— but to what? To 
"teach" or "preach?" The priests of old were offi- 
cially neither u teachers " nor " preachers." To govern ? 
" The priests " never claimed nor were intended to 
govern. Called to what? "To draw near" to the 



Special Divine Call to the Ministry. 105 

divine presence. Such is the significant etymology of 
the Hebrew and Arabic terms for " priest," and such is 
the glorious calling of the priesthood of the people. 
Not to the drudgery of teaching or the thankless task of 
governing, but to draw near to the glory of God — to 
enter through the veil of a Saviour's torn flesh the holy 
of holies to present in their own behalf the " Sacrifice 
offered once for all." This is the high and holy "call- 
ing of God in Christ Jesus " to all the people. 

May we not now courteously lend a hand to assist our 
logician across a slight flaw in his argument ? He 
urges his objections thus: "The Holy Ghost calls me 
to preach in the Church ; therefore I am to govern the 
Church ; I don't see that logic." The Holy Ghost calls 
the people to a " royal priesthood " in the Church, " to 
draw near to God ;" therefore! they are "all called" 
to preach in the Church — all called to govern in the 
Church. Does he " see " this logic ? 



106 Principles of Church Government. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE SPECIAL COMMISSION TO GOVERN. 

The doctrine of the priesthood of the people having 
been shown to be utterly irrelevant to the " callings " 
of either " teaching" or "governing," we now proceed 
to the discussion of the principle of expediency in 
Church government. 

While not disposed to question the validity of the 
principle when applied to those less important details 
that vary to a certain extent the different Church econ- 
omies of Christendom, we hope to show that, when ap- 
plied to the fundamental principles of Church govern- 
ment, it is far from being satisfactorily established; its 
doubtful empire being by far too narrowly and sharply 
circumscribed by the unwavering lines traced by the 
pen of inspiration — the finger of God. The generous 
natures of our distinguished advocates, however, have 
endowed this principle with boundless empire and un- 
limited authority. " The government of the primitive 
Church," they tell us, " had no divine prescription and 
has no divine injunction. It was all copied from the 
Jewish provincial customs, and simply because they 
were expedient, decent, and impressive." And again: 
" The conclusion, then, is this, that Church government 
in the light of primitive Christianity is a matter of ex- 
pediency. This generalization is historically, logically, 



The Special Commission to Govern. 107 

and indefeasibly true." The arguments by which they 
would fortify so extensive a territory are chiefly these : 
(a) " The government of the primitive Church was not 
copied from the Levitical system," " ordained of God 
and prescribed by Moses." (b) The system of apostolic 
Church government " was copied from the synagogue" 
which is " unmentioned in all the writings of Moses," 
and " never enjoined." " The primitive Christians and 
Jews had been accustomed to certain simple ecclesias- 
tical usages founded in practical convenience, but with- 
out a word of divine prescription." " They copied them 
into their organization." 

Let us look inquiringly into the merits of these in 
their order : 

(a) " The government of the primitive Church was not 
copied from the Levitical system ordained of God and 
prescribed by Moses," and therefore it had "no divine 
prescription, and has no divine injunction ! " The fault 
of this logic is apparent at a glance, the premise being by 
far too narrow for the exceeding breadth of the conclu- 
sion. Was nothing besides the Levitical system ever "en- 
joined of Gocl ? " One of these advocates, within five 
minutes after he had named this argument, gave a very 
conclusive refutation of it in referring to the priesthood 
of Christ. " St. Paul," he says, " pronounced Jesus Christ 
the High-priest, yet St. Paul was guarded lest it might 
be thought he had some reference to Levitical author- 
ity or Jewish precedent. He argues that Jesus was not 
a High-priest after the order of Aaron, but that of Mel- 
chizedek," and so, Christ not having Levitical authority, 
was without authority, the conditions of his priesthood 



108 Pkinciples of Church Government. 

not having been " prescribed by Moses! " Logic of the 
nineteenth century ! 

The second argument is equally fallacious. "The 
system of apostolic Church government was copied 
from the synagogue, unmentioned in all the writings of 
Moses, and never enjoined." Therefore this "copy- 
ing," though done by the Saviour himself and his in- 
spired apostles, is founded solely on the principle of 
expediency, and has no binding authority on the ages 
that follow ! We propose, in answer, both to question 
the premise and to disprove the conclusion. 

The premise is an untenable assumption, or rather a 
trinity of assumptions: (1) That the synagogue is "un- 
mentioned in all the writings of Moses;" (2) that it 
was "never enjoined;" and (3) that the government of 
the apostolic Church was all " copied from the Jewish 
synagogue." Having disposed of these, we shall notice 
the more amazing assumption in the conclusion that the 
act of Christ and his apostles in transferring some of 
the offices and ceremonies of the synagogues into the 
Christian Church is to be regarded as simply an expe- 
dient for the times, and of no binding force whatever 
on those who should come after. 

1. We are told that the synagogue is "unmentioned 
in all the writings of Moses," " and never enjoined." 
We propose to show these statements to be erroneous. 

In a little book entitled Church Polity, by Dr. 
Stevens, written, as he tells us, in the days of his " pu- 
pilage," we find substantial information "in the argu- 
ments of the old authorities sincerely re-uttered by 
him." Here the author informs us that the " synagogue 



The Special Commission to Govern. 109 

was a local and conventional institution, founded on 
not a single command, except the general one con- 
tained in Lev. xxiii, 3." Here, then, it is clearly ad- 
mitted that the institution is at least founded on a 
"general command " of the Mosaic law. This is en- 
couraging. But this " general command " is in fact 
most specific. " Six days shall work be done, but the 
seventh is the sabbath of rest, a holy convocation, 
mikra kodhesh (of synagogue). Ye shall do no work. 
It is the sabbath in (or among) all your dwellings," or, 
as the Septuagint's text may be rendered, " In all your 
dwelling-places, villages, settlements, or colonies." 

" The word mikra, which we render a convocation," 
says Godwin, "seems more naturally to import a place 
of public worship in which the people assembled than 
the assembly itself. As in the following passage in 
Isaiah : ' And the Lord will create upon every dwell- 
ing-place of Mount Zion and upon her assemblies 
(mikrajeha), a cloud and smoke by day, and the shin- 
ing of a flame by night,' chap, iv, in which there is a 
manifest allusion to the tabernacle whereon the cloud 
and pillar of fire rested in the wilderness. Exod. xi, 38. 
And what, then, could these mikra kodhesh be but 
synagogues, or edifices of public worship ? " * 

These mikra kodhesh may be but a Hebrew synonym 
for the Hebrew words monguad-heel, which are appro- 
priately rendered in Psa. lxxiv, 8, "the synagogue of 
God," and are so qualified by the words that precede 
and follow as to be by no possible means referred to 
the temple at Jerusalem, that existed before this psalm 
* Jewish Antiquities, p. 318. 



110 Principles of Church Government. 

was written ; for the psalmist laments that during Is- 
rael's captivity their enemies had burned up "all the 
synagogues of God in the land." How was the Sabbath 
to be kept, and especially these convocations to be ob- 
served by Israel, if there were to be no more than one 
consecrated place ? Is it not clear that the " general 
command " is a specific injunction to hold holy convo- 
cations, or " synagogues," on every Sabbath day, in or 
among all their dwellings throughout the entire land ? 
How preposterous the affirmation that this institution is 
"never mentioned in the writings of Moses." 

2. Can it be more satisfactorily shown that it was 
" never enjoined ? " Can it be proven that these assem- 
blies or synagogues — for the terms are synonymous — 
were not immediately organized under the immediate 
supervision of God ? If that very sweeping assertion, 
that it was "never enjoined," is to be made good, they 
must do this and much more. They must show that 
God at no subsequent period has ever intervened for 
the regulation of the religious services instituted by 
divine command. 

The silence that follows touching these convocations 
no more disproves their existence than it does that of 
the Sabbath on which they were held ; for the sacred . 
day is not alluded to during a period of five hundred 
and fifty-four years, nor the tabernacle itself for a 
period of three hundred years. Will these advocates 
lift the curtains of that silence, and by tracing dis- 
tinctly the track of divine administrations show us 
beyond a question that the services of the synagogue 
were not during that oblivious period "divinely en- 



The Special Commission to Govern. Ill 

joined ? " When a flash of inspiration does for a mo- 
ment light up the scene of these assemblies (2 Kings 
iv, 23), what is the character of the picture ? A de- 
mocracy? A convention of delegates enacting laws 
on the basis of expediency, decency, or convenience ? 
No, sir ! " The man of God " is the aggregating 
center. 

Can it be proved that Elisha, the inspired prophet 
of God, did not in the name of heaven make all need- 
ful " rules and regulations " for the government of these 
implied assemblies on the "sabbath, or new moons?" 

Look at the scenes given further on : "the elders 
of Israel " coming " to inquire of the Lord " and sitting 
at the feet of the prophet Ezekiel. Ezek. xx, 1. Hear 
the people saying every one to his brother, " Come, I 
pray you, and hear what is the word that cometh forth 
from the Lord. And they came unto thee as the peo- 
ple cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, 
and they hear thy words." Ezek. xxxiii, 30, 31. In 
this manner elders and people were accustomed "to in- 
quire of the Lord," and can any one show that the reg- 
ulations of the services of the synagogue were never 
the subject of inquiry on the part of the people and of 
"injunction " on the part of the Lord? 

Look at the interest Jehovah has manifested in his 
people when deprived through captivity of the priv- 
ileges of the temple service. "Thus saith the Lord 
God, Although I have cast them off among the heathen, 
and although I have scattered them among the coun- 
tries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the 
countries where they shall come." Ezek. xi, 16. 



112 Principles of Church Government. 

Will any one point out the especial propriety of this 
beautiful metaphor if this "little sanctuary" or "syna- 
gogue," as most authorities interpret it, had not the 
especial sanction of the Lord of hosts ? Stronger lan- 
guage expressive of the divine interest in the institution 
of the synagogue could scarcely be employed. Deity 
himself should be as a miniature temple — for such 
were the synagogues — Josephus frequently calling the 
temple and the synagogue by the same name, " Ieron " 
(vspov)* 

Bishop Stillingfleet says the first model of the syna- 
gogue government is with a great deal of probability 
derived from the schools of the prophets and the gov- 
ernment thereof, f We have a picture of one of these 
" schools " in 1 Sam. xix, 20. What was the "govern- 
ment thereof ? " u And Saul sent messengers to take 
David, and when they saw the company of the prophets 
prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over 
them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of 
Saul, and they also prophesied." Who will prove that 
God did not make that "appointment;" that, according 
to our American ideas, Samuel was popularly elected 
"decently," "conveniently," "expediently," and "con- 
tingently ? " 

Dean Stanley says that these schools " were organ- 
ized under Samuel," " who stood appointed over them," 
and that " under the shadow of his name the prophets 
dwelt as in a charmed circle," etc. J 

Who were " the masters of assemblies, which are 

* Wars of the Jews, Book YI, x, 1, and Book YTI, iii, 3. 
f Irenicum, p. 282. % Jewish Church, p. 440. 



The Special Commission to Govern. 113 

given under one shepherd," mentioned Eccl. xii, 11 ? 
Who will prove that these were not the elders " given " 
of God under one pastor or angel of the synagogue, 
and all under one great Shepherd ? 

"And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of 
wood, which they had made for the purpose ; and be- 
side him stood Mattathiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, 
and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right 
hand ; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and 
Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, 
and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the 
sight of all the people ; (for he was above all the peo- 
ple); and when he opened it, all the people stood up: 
and Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the 
people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their 
hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshiped 
the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, 
and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, 
Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, 
Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to un- 
derstand the law: and the people stood in their place. 
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, 
and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the 
reading." Neh. viii, 4-8. 

Stillingfleet says: "About the time of Christ we 
find synagogues of very great request among the Jews, 
God so disposing it that the moral part of his service 
should be more frequented now the ceremonial was 
about expiring, and by those places so erected it might 
be more facile and easy for the apostles to dispense the 
Gospel by preaching it in those places to which it was 



114 Principles of Church Government. 

the custom of the Jews to resort." * Who will under- 
take to prove the contrary ? 

But, for the purpose of penetrating directly to the 
very quick of this famous principle, let us for the 
moment grant the utmost that any radical advocate 
could possibly claim touching the casual origin of tlie 
Jewish synagogue, and the transference of its entire 
ritual and polity, bodily, into the primitive Church, 
determining thereby, even to the minictice, the forms of 
its worship and government. Would these facts for- 
ever bar the claim that these " forms" might still be 
divinely prescribed and divinely enjoined ? If not, 
then all that might be said in proof of the posi- 
tion, that the synagogue was not " mentioned in the 
writings of Moses," and of the worship and economy 
of the primitive Church being "copied simply from 
the Jewish provincial customs," falls by its own 
specific irrelevancy entirely out of the argument as 
worthless. 

We propose now to show that if these alleged facts 
bar the divine authority of primitive Church govern- 
ment, similar facts invalidate, to a very considerable 
extent, the claim that the Levitical system was " di- 
vinely prescribed and divinely enjoined." Let us take 
the construction of the tabernacle for an illustration. 
Every one will agree with us that all its appointments 
were of divine authority. "And look that thou make 
them after their pattern showed thee in the mount." 
Exod. xxv, 40. " As Moses was admonished of God 
when he was about to ranke the tabernacle, for see, 
*Iren., p. 26*. 



The Special Commission to Govern. 115 

saith he, that thou make all things according to the 
pattern showed thee in the mount." Heb. viii, 5. 

But will any man deny that many portions of that 
divine pattern had been anticipated in the peculiar 
feature of Egyptian temples with which Moses and 
Israel are more or less familiar, or that these trans- 
fers are not made by divine authority ? The denial of 
either would be equally hazardous. The Scriptures 
which we have quoted determine the latter, while every 
authority in the antiquities of Egypt will make evident 
the former. 

Our space will only permit us to glance at th@ wide- 
spread " primeval symbolism " from which very many 
of the outlines of that pattern were evidently draAvn. 
" So far from laboring," says one authority, " to prove, 
at the price of ignoring or destroying facts, that every 
thing till then was unknown, we shall as little expect 
to find it so as to see in Hebrew a new and heaven- 
born language, spoken for the first time on Sinai, 
written for the first time on the two tables of the 
covenant. 

" The thought of a graduated sanctity like that of 
the outer court, the holy place, the holy of holies, 
had its counterpart, often the same number of stages, 
in the structure of Egyptian temples.* The interior 
adytum was small in proportion to the rest of the 
building, and commonly, as in the tabernacle,! was at 
the western end, J and was unlighted from without. 

" In the adytum, often, at least, was the sacred ark, 
the culminating point of holiness, containing the highest 

* Bahr, Symb., i, 216. f Joseplms, Ant, ii, 6, § 3, $ Spencer, iii, 2. 



116 Principles op Church Government. 

and most mysterious symbols, winged figures, gener- 
ally like those of the cherubim,* the emblems of sta- 
bility and life. Here were outward points of resem- 
blance. Of all the elements of Egyptian worship this 
was one which could be transferred with least hazard, 
and with most gain. . . . When we ask what gave the 
ark its holiness we are led at once to the infinite differ- 
ence, the great gulf between the two systems." f 

These facts cannot be gainsaid. What will our 
radical advocates do with them? Or, rather, what will 
not these ugly facts do with their pretty theories of 
expediency founded on the transfer of "the conven- 
ient and decent provincial customs of the Jews " into 
the service and government of the primitive Church ? 

Let it be once established that these transfers were 
made by the divine authority of Christ and his 
inspired apostles, and these unwelcome facts must 
smash into very unpleasant and uncomfortably close 
quarters the whole inflated system of expediency. For 
if God could even incorporate in the divinely ordained 
patterns of Sinai many of the pre-existing features of 
heathen temples, without impairing in the least the obli- 
gation of Israel to receive them as " divinely prescribed 
and divinely enjoined," how much more are we not 
obligated to receive from the hand of God as " divinely 
prescribed and divinely enjoined " that system of 
government which embodies only those features of 
Church polity which have been developed in institu- 
tions of his own appointment (Lev. xxiii, 3) among his 

* Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt, v, 275; Kendrick's Egypt, i, p. 460. 
f Smith's Diet, of Bible, art. " Tabernacle." 



The Special Commission to Govern. 117 

own chosen people, and under the immediate super- 
vision of his own inspired teachers, the prophets. 
1 Sam. xix, 20; 2 Kings iv, 23 ; Ezek. xx, 1. 

" We are to notice," says Stillingfleet, " how much 
our Saviour in the New Testament did delight to take 
the received practices among the Jews only with such 
alterations of them as were suitable to the nature and 
doctrine of Christianity, as hath been abundantly 
manifested by many learned men, about rites of the 
Lord's supper taken from the post ccenam (after the 
supper) among the Jews ; the use of baptism, used in 
initiating proselytes; ex-communication, from their 
putting out of the synagogue." " As to which thing," 
he continues, " it may be observed that those rites 
which our Saviour transplanted into the Gospel soil 
were not such as were originally found in the Mosaic 
law." * 

Dare any man among us affirm that baptism, the 
Lord's supper, etc., "are in no given form obligatory?" 
that they have " no divine prescription and no divine 
injunction?" And yet every argument, fact, and prin- 
ciple with which our " reformers " would obscure the 
divine origin and binding authority of primitive 
Church government bears with equal force against 
" the divine prescription and divine injunction " of the 
sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. For 
what our Saviour did in the transference of the latter, 
inspired apostles commissioned "to bind or loose," did 
for the former; they transplanted the names and offices 
of "deacon" and "elder" from the synagogue, or 
*Iren. y p. 264. 



118 Principles of Church Government. 

rather from the old dispensation for the special admin- 
istration of finance and the general supervision of all 
the interests of the Church, temporal and spiritual, and 
that we may know that their action was ratified, 
" bound in heaven," we have the express declaration of 
the infallible word that " God hath set governments " 
"in the Church." 1 Cor. xii, 28. It was not "conven- 
ience," " expediency," " decency," or " contingency," 
but " God." 

If ever the principle of expediency was incarnate in 
opposition to the arrogant claims of " divine right " for 
the hierarchal forms of episcopacy and papacy, it was 
in the person of Bishop Stillingfleet. His Irenicum 
never has and never will be answered. And yet no 
man ever has or ever will present more invincible argu- 
ments in behalf of "the divine right of the presbyters " 
to govern the Church of God. 

We respectfully call the attention of all thinkers to 
his massive and masterly argument in Part II, chap, ii, 
commencing with these sentences: "The government 
of the Church ought to be administered by officers of 
divine appointment." "There must be a standing, per- 
petual ministry in the .Church of God, whose care and 
employment must be to oversee and govern the people 
of God, and to administer Gospel ordinances among 
them, and this is of divine and perpetual right;" and 
closing with the following: "Thus I have asserted the 
perpetual divine right of a Gospel ministry, not only 
for teaching the word, but administration of ordi- 
nances and governing the Church as a society, which 
work belongs to none but such as are appointed for it, 



The Special Commission to Govern. 119 

who are the same with the dispensers of the word, as 
appears from the titles agoumenoi, proesotes, poimenes, 
'governors,' ' rulers,' i pastors,' all which necessarily im- 
ply a governing power." * 

So far from giving unlimited sweep to the principle 
of expediency, he very properly subjects it to the fol- 
lowing " standing laws for Church government," which 
may be " applicable to several forms." 

"All laws occurring in Scripture respecting Church 
government," he tells us, "may be referred to these 
three heads: (1) Such as set down the qualifications 
of the persons for the office of government ; (2) such 
as require a right management of their office; and 
(3) such as lay down rules for the management of their 
office." 

1. "We begin," he says, "with those which set down 
the qualifications of persons employed in government. 
These we have largely and fully set down by St. Paul 
in his order to Timothy and Titus, prescribing what 
manner of persons those should be who are to 
be employed in the government of the Church: 'A 
bishop must be blameless as the steward of God; not 
self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no 
striker,' " etc. 

2. Under the head of " precepts of the Gospel, re- 
quiring a right management of the work," he specifies: 
"Take heed unto all the flock over which the Holy 
Ghost had made you overseers" (Acts xx, 28) ; "so 
exhorting, reproving, preaching in season and out of 
season " (2 Tim. iv, 2) ; doing all things without " rash 

* Iren., pp. 185, 196. 



120 Principles of Church Government. 

censures" and partiality (1 Tim. v, 21); watching over 
the flock as they that must give an account ; laying 
hands suddenly on no man ; rebuking not an elder, but 
under two or three witnesses (Heb. xiii, IV; 1 Tim. v, 
19, 22) ; and whatever precepts we read in the epistles 
of Timothy and Titus. 

3. Under the third head of rules he specifies "that 
no one take this office of preaching without a call, nor go 
without sending (Heb. v, 2; Rom. x, 14); that offend- 
ers be censured and complaints made to the Church in 
case of scandal ; that all things be done decently and in 
order ; that all be done for edification and the com- 
mon benefit of the Church.* The fact which he very 
conclusively shows, that all the above " standing laws 
for the government of the Church" are equally com- 
patible with several specific forms of Church polity, 
does in no way weaken their power or destroy their 
value as barriers to that rampant spirit of expediency 
so rife in our day; a spirit that tramples on every spe- 
cific Bible law for the ordering of Church polity that 
would not leave the Lord Jesus a solitary ballot in de- 
termining the most momentous issues in the temporal 
destiny of his Church. 

In amazing contrast to the above statesman-like views 
of Stillingfleet read from one of the lights of the "nine- 
teenth century: " "Look into your New Testament to 
settle the question of Church government — of the rela- 
tive rights of clergy and people — what do you find in 
it ? Not a single injunction, except that most general 
one, ' Let all things be done decently and in order.' " 
* Iren., pp. 209, 211, 214. 



The Special Commission to Govern. 121 

"Christianity thus started untrammeled for its career 
over all the planet and down all the ages !" Admirable ! 
With charts given to the winds, compass and quadrant 
overboard, with rudder shipped, ballast loosened in the 
hold, masts and cordage gone, the helpless hulk of the 
famous old ship Zion, rolling and tumbling in the 
troughs of every gale of expediency, is just entering 
upon a voyage " untrammeled for its career over all 
the planet and down all the ages ! " 



122 Principles of Chukch Government. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE TWELVE APOSTLES ESPECIALLY COMMISSIONED. 

We will now undertake to show that the two special 
commissions (to preach and to govern) were distinctive- 
ly given to the twelve apostles in the name of God. 

Let us first attend to the special call to preach. Of 
the great Head of the Church, Mark says: "And he 
goeth up unto a mountain and calleth unto him whom 
he would, and he ordiined twelve that they should, be 
with him, and that he might send them forth to preach." 
Chap, iii, 13, 14. 

Matthew says : " These twelve Jesus sent forth, and 
commanded them, . . . As ye go preach, saying, The 
kingdom of heaven is at hand. He that receiveth you 
receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him 
that sent me."' Chap, x, 5-40. Luke says: "He called 
unto him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, 
whom also he named apostles." Chap, vi, 13. "And 
he sent them to preach the kingdom of God." Chap, 
ix, 2. In John xv, 16, 27, we read: "Ye have not 
chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, 
that ye should go and bring forth fruit, . . . and ye also 
shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from 
the beginning." The solemn reiteration of this great 
commission is thus made by Him who stood but a step 
from a universal throne. The place and circumstances 



The Twelve Apostles Commissioned. 123 

are noted by St. Matthew as follows: " Then the eleven 
disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain where 
Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him 
they worshiped, but sane doubted. And Jesus came 
and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto 
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am 
wkh you alway, even unto the end of the world. 
Amen." Matt, xxviii, 16-20. 

If a certain modern exposition of this text has awak- 
ened a question as to whether " the great commission " 
was given to others beside the eleven, St. Mark will 
answer: "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as 
they sat at meat and upbraided them with their unbe- 
lief and hardness of heart, because they believed not 
them which had seen him after he was risen; and he 
said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the 
Gospel to every creature." Mark xvi, 14, 15. 

Language more incisive and authoritative could not be 
used. The fact that the Saviour "afterward" called 
" other seventy " only indicates the fact that those who 
after the apostles were to be called to this holy office 
were to be summoned by the same divine authority. 

As to the special commission of the apostles to govern 
in the Church of God, we call attention, first, to that 
noted text in Matt, xvi, 18, 19: "I say unto thee, That 
thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I 
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 



124 Principles of Church Government. 

and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven." 

Dr. Whedon, than whom there is no profounder 
thinker in our Church on either side the sea, in his ad- 
mirable notes upon this passage says: "Authority over 
the whole (Church) is conferred upon Peter and through 
him on all the apostles, by bestowing on him and them 
the keys." '.* This," he continues, " is according to an 
ancient custom of surrendering the government of a city 
or fortress by yielding the keys. Hence the language in 
Isa. xxii, 22, which is a suitable parallel to these words 
of our Lord : ' The key of the house of David will I lay 
upon his shoulder, so he shall open and none shall shut, 
and he shall shut and none shall open.' Our Lord there- 
fore here confers upon the twelve an inspired and mi- 
raculous authority and power to found and govern his 
Church after his resurrection by decisions which should 
be ratified in heaven." 

(In loco) Adam Clark quotes Dr. Lightfoot as fol- 
lows : " To this, therefore, these words amount. When 
the time was come wherein the Mosaic law, as to some 
part of it, was to be abolished, and as to another part 
was to be continued and to last forever, he granted 
Peter here and the rest of the apostles (chap, xviii, 18) 
a power to abolish or confirm whnt they thought good, 
and as they thought good, being taught and led by the 
Holy Spirit." 

Bloomfield, in his notes on the Greek text, says: "The 
sense, will be whatsoever thou shalt forbid to be done, or 
or whatsoever thou shalt declare lawful, and constitute in 



The Twelve Apostles Commissioned. 125 

the Church, shall be ratified and hold good with God, 
including all measures for the government of the 
Church."* 

"Strictly considered," says Alford, in his comment 
on the Greek, " the binding and loosing belong to the 
power of legislation in the Church committed to the 
apostles." 

Bishop Taylor says: "This promise was made to 
Peter first, yet not for himself, but for all the college, 
and then made a second time to them all without rep- 
resentation, but in diffusion, and performed to all alike 
except St. Thomas." f 

Dr. Nast says : " We may define the power of the 
keys, conferred here upon Peter as the representative of 
the apostles, and afterward expressly declared to belong 
to all the apostles, to be a twofold power. First, it is 
what has been called the key of doctrine — that is, the 
authority to declare for all time to come the conditions 
of salvation. Secondly, the power of the keys implies 
what has been called the key of discipline — that is, to 
determine the terms of membership in the Church on 
earth ; to lay down such laws for the order and gov- 
ernment of the Church as to be binding to the end 
of time. By the apostolical legislation the Church is 
bound in the administration of discipline, in the admis- 
sion and exclusion of members. It is only the word 
that binds and looses." 

Let us turn to Matt, xviii, 18, and notice that the 
only change made in the commission of the apostles is 

*See Vitringa, Be Synagogue, p. 754. 
f See Bloom 6eld in loco. 



126 Peinciples of Chitkch Government. 

in the substitution of the term "ye " for "thou" in the 
commission of Peter as their representative. 

" Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on 
earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 

Bishop Bloomfield thus paraphrases these words: 
" Whatever ye shall determine and appoint respecting 
such an oifender (see verse 17), whether as to his re- 
moval from Christian society if obdurate and incorrig- 
ible, or his re-admission into it on repentance, I will 
ratify; and whatever guidance ye ask from heaven in 
forming those determinations shall be granted you, so 
that there be two or three that unite in the determina- 
tion or in the prayer." " Hence it is obvious that in 
their primary and strict sense the words and the prom- 
ise have reference to the apostles alone ; however, they 
may in a qualified sense apply to Christian teachers in 
every age" (in loco). 

Richard Watson says: "To understand this passage 
clearly it is necessary to consider that as the various 
matters of dispute which would arise among brethren 
or Christians involved moral questions, and these were 
to be referred in the last resort to the Church, they 
must be determined by some fixed and settled rules. 
Now Christianity is a more perfect dispensation of 
moral duties as well as of grace. This is proved from 
our Lord's Sermon on the Mount and many other of his 
discourses, where he not only refutes modern errors, 
but places ancient truths in clearer light, and shows 
their limitation or expansion more accurately, and adds 
many others. 



The Twelve Apostles Commissioned. 127 

This is further confirmed by the moral part of the 
writings of the apostles, in which all the holy princi- 
ples laid down in the Old Testament and in the dis- 
courses of Christ are drawn out into particular injunc- 
tions, and applied to the various personal, civil, and 
ecclesiastical and social duties incumbent upon Chris- 
tians. 

It was, therefore, necessary, after our Lord, with ref- 
erence to the discipline to be exercised in his future 
Church, had prescribed the mode of dealing with of- 
fenders, that he should speak of the rules or laws by 
which all such cases were to be determined, and the 
source from which they should emanate. These rules 
or laws were to be brought in by the apostles, to whom 
the Holy Spirit was to be given, in the plenitude of his 
inspiration, to bring the doctrines which Christ himself 
had taught to their remembrance, and to lend them into 
all truth necessary to complete the Christian system. 
ISTow these were to be the sole and only laws by which 
things were to be bound or loosed, declared lawful or 
unlawful, binding upon men's consciences or otherwise, 
and consequently by these rules Christians were to form 
their private judgment respecting what is right and 
what is wrong in their various kinds and degrees, and 
by these same rules the censures or otherwise of the 
Church were to be solely directed. 

These words, therefore, were spoken to the apostles 
— as indeed was the whole preceding discourse; for 
the eleven, after they had disputed about superiority by 
the way, joined Peter and Christ in the house; and the 
twelve being thus collected, and they only, our Lord 



128 Peinciples of Chuech Goveenment. 

delivers to them the series of addresses which this 
chapter contains." Expos. Matt, xviii, 18. 

Does any man question the authority of the inspired 
apostles in the Church of God? The Saviour says: 
" As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." 
John xx, 21. " He that heareth you heareth me, and 
he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that de- 
spiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke x, 16. 



Special Commission to Oedained Eldees. 129 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE SPECIAL COMMISSION" CONVEYED TO THE ORDAINED 
PREACHING ELDERS. 

Oue next proposition is that authority to govern in 
the primitive Church, according to the " bindings and 
loosings" of the New Testament, was conveyed by the 
act of inspired apostles to the ordained pastoral or 
preaching elders who succeeded them in the name of 
God. 

While we are no advocate of " prelatical or apostolic 
succession," as held either by High-Churchmen or Ro- 
manists, we do hold what it seems to us no man in his 
senses can deny — that to the ordained elders in the 
primitive Churches, as distinguished from the laity, 
was given supervisory authority over all the spiritual 
interests of the Church. 

In their especial mission as witnesses of Christ's min- 
istry, death, resurrection, and ascension (see Luke xxiv, 
46, 48; Acts i, 21-23; xxii, 14; 1 Cor. ix, 1, 2), for 
which cause they were called " apostles," they could, of 
course, have no successors ; nor in their capacity as the 
inspired authors who were to complete the canon of 
Scripture, for their inspired rulings were to constitute 
the organic law of the Church to the end of time, bind- 
ing on earth because ratified in heaven. Nor yet, per- 
haps, as the possessors of miraculous gifts could they 
9 



130 Principles of Church Government. 

have had successors, for these, it would seem (2 Cor. 
xii, 12 ; Acts ii, 43), were the especial badges or cre- 
dentials of their apostolic mission. But this they could 
and did do : they transferred to the ordained and pas- 
toral elders who succeeded them their administrative or 
supervisory prerogatives; involving, of course, not only 
executive, but in a minor sense the legislative, functions, 
at least so far as it should be necessary in devising 
ways and means for the efficient application of the fun- 
damental and unvarying organic law. 

The joint union of the " elders " of the Church at Je- 
rusalem with the apostles, both in the deliberations and 
promulgation of the authoritative decrees of the first 
council, binding the Gentile Church for all time, is evi- 
dence that " the twelve " had associated them with 
themselves at least in the administrative functions of 
the primitive Church. And, indeed, " Peter, an apostle 
of Jesus Christ " — the one to whom the keys were es- 
pecially given (as a representative apostle) — in writing 
to the " strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, 
Asia, and Bithynia," addressed the " elders " among 
them as being himself a " co-" or "fellow elder" 
(sumpresbuteros), find " exhorts " them : " Feed the flock 
of God which is among you, taking the oversight 
( piskapountes) thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; 
not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as 
being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to 
the flock." 1 Pet. v, 1, 2. 

To the same import is the language of " Paul, called 
to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of 
God," in his address to the " elders (presbuteroi) of the 



Special Commission to Ordained Elders. 131 

Church" of Ephesus gathered at Miletus: " Take heed 
therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (epis- 
kopous), to feed the Church of God." Acts xx, 28. 

To these presbyters or " elders " (episkopoi), " bish- 
ops or pastors," who are to "feed the flock of God," 
the people are exhorted with apostolic solicitude, and 
commanded by apostolic authority, to be subject. 

" And we beseech you, brethren, to know them 
which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, 
and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in 
love for their work's sake." 1 Thess. v, 12, 13. " Re- 
member them which have the rule over you, who have 
spoken unto you the word of God : whose faith follow." 
Hob. xiii, 7. " Obey them that have the rule over you, 
and submit yourselves : for they watch for your souls, 
as they that must give account, that they may do it 
with joy, and not with grief." Verse 17. 

It is impossible for Scripture to be more explicit or 
authoritative, and yet in an age giddy with its own 
vanities these texts go for nothing. " Look into your 
New Testaments," says one distinguished advocate, 
" to settle the question of Church government, of the 
relative rights of clergy and people, and what do you 
hnd in it? Not a single injunction except that most 
general one, ' Let all things be done decently and in 
order.' " ! ! ! 

Now a word as to the origin of the office of " elder " 
and its significance in the New Testament. John 
Wesley says, " Try all things by the written word, and 
let all bow down before it." 



132 Principles of Church Government. 

Of the prophetic elders ordained of God, we read in 
Num. xi, 16, 24, 25: 

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me 
seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou know- 
est to be the elders of the people, and officers over 
them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the con- 
gregation, that they may stand there with thee. And 
Moses went out, and told the people the words of the 
Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of 
the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. 
And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto 
him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and 
gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, 
that, when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, 
and did not cease." 

It is the opinion of Michaelis that this council chosen 
to assist Moses should not be confounded with the 
Sanhedrin, which he thinks was not established until 
after the return from the Babylonish captivity. " The 
seventy," he says, " were not chosen to be judges of 
the people, who had already more than sixty thousand 
judges." "It seems," he says, "more likely to have 
been his intention to form a supreme senate to take a 
share in the government." 

" We need not assume," says McClintock and Strong's 
Cyclopedia, "that the order was then called into exist- 
ence, but rather that Moses availed himself of an insti- 
tution already existing and recognized by his country- 
men, and that, in short, ' the elders of Israel ' (Exod. iii, 
]6; iv, 29) had been the senate (Sept. yegovala) of the 
people ever since they had been a people. The posi- 



Special Commission to Ordained Elders. 133 

tion which the elders held in the Mosaic constitution is 
described as the representatives of the people, so much 
so that elders and people are occasionally used as 
synonymous terms. Their authority was undefined, 
and extended to all matters pertaining to the public 
weal. Nor did the people question the validity of 
their acts, even when they disapproved of them. 
Josh, ix, 18. And so they tell us, "The creation of the 
office of elder is nowhere recorded in the New Testa- 
ment, as in the case of deacons and apostles, because 
the latter offices were created to meet new and special 
emergencies, while the former was transmitted from 
the earliest times. In other words, the office of elder 
was the only permanent essential office of the Church 
under either dispensation." * 

" The Jewish eldership, according to this view, was 
tacitly transferred from the old dispensation to the 
new, without express or formal institution, except in 
Gentile churches, where no such office had a previous 
existence." f 

"The elders of the New Testament Church were 
plainly pastors (Eph. iv, 11), bishops, or overseers (Acis 
xx, 28), leaders and rulers (Heb. xiii, 7 ; 1 Thess. v, 1 2) 
of the flock." X 

" But they were not only leaders and rulers, but also 
the regular teachers of the congregation, to whom 
pertained officially the exposition of the Scriptures and 
the preaching of the Gospel." § 

As for the idea advanced in some quarters, that some 

* Princeton Review, xix, 61. 

f McClintock & Strong, article " Elder." \ Hid. § Ibid, 



134 Peinciples of Chuech Goveenment. 

of the elders were laymen, we quote from Dr. Hitch- 
cock,* as follows: "The jure divino theory of the lay 
eldership is steadily losing ground." The Westmin- 
ster Assembly, after a long discussion, refused to 
adopt Calvin's novel theory of a lay ruling eldership. 

For a luminous statement of the whole subject of 
lay eldership, with a conclusive proof that there is no 
trace of it in the New Testament, see Dr. Hitchcock's 
article in the Presbyterian Review, 1868. 

But what is the testimony of the early fathers as to 
the authority of the ruling elders in the post-apostolic 
period ? 

In the "golden remains of Clement Romanus," as the 
critics say, " great and admirable," " almost on a level 
with the canonical writings," " this precious relic of 
later apostolic times," we find the following on the 
very first page: "For ye walked in all the command- 
ments of God, being obedient to those that had the 
rule over you, and giving all fitting honor to the pres- 
byters among you." 

Again: "Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, 
whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those 
that have the rule over us ; let us honor the presbyters 
among us." — P. 23. 

"Let us preserve in the Church the order appointed 
of God. . . . He has enjoined offerings to be presented 
and services to be performed to him. Where and by 
whom he desires these things to be done he himself 
has fixed by his own supreme will. . . . The laymen 
bound by laws that pertain to laymen." — P. 36. 
* American Presbyterian Review, 1868, p. 255. 



Special Commission to Oedained Eldees. 135 

" Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God 
in his own order, living with becoming gravity, and 
not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed 
to him."— P. 36. 

" Christ was sent forth by God, and the apostles by 
Christ. Having thus received their orders, they went 
forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at 
hand. And thus preaching through countries and 
cities they appointed the first-fruits of their labors, 
having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops 
and deacons of those who should afterward believe." 
—P. 37. 

"Our apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus 
Christ that there would be strife on account of the 
office of the episcopate. For this reason they appointed 
those ministers already named, and afterward gave in- 
structions that when they should fall asleep other ap- 
proved men should succeed them in their ministry. 
We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by 
them or afterward by other eminent men with the 
consent of the whole Church, and who have blame- 
lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peace- 
able, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long 
time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot 
be justly dismissed the ministry; for our sin will 
not be small if we reject from the episcopate those 
who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." 
—P. 39. 

" It is disgraceful, beloved, highly disgraceful, and 
unworthy your Christian profession, that such a thing 
should be heard of as that the most steadfast and an- 



136 Principles op Church Government. 

cient Church of the Corinthians should on account of 
one or two persons engage in sedition against its pres- 
byters."— P. 41. 

"If on my account sedition and disagreement and 
schisms have arisen, I will depart. I will do whatever 
the majority (literally, the multitude) commands, only 
let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the 
presbyters set over it." — P. 45. 

" Ye therefore who laid the foundation of this sedi- 
tion submit yourselves to the presbyters and receive 
correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your 
hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the pride and 
self-confidence of your tongue." — P. 48. 

There is a general consent among scholars at the 
present day that we have in the epistle of Polycarp an 
authentic production of the renowned Bishop of Smyrna. 
Irenaeus, his disciple, tells us that "Polycarp was in- 
structed by the apostles, and was brought into contact 
with many who had seen Christ." The epistle opens 
with — "Polycarp and the presbyters with him, to the 
Church of God sojourning at Philippi." 

"In like manner should the deacons be blameless be- 
fore the face of his righteousness, as being the servants 
of God and Christ, and not of men." 

"Let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful 
to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting with 
the sick, not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the 
poor, abstaining from unjust judgment, not quickly 
crediting an evil report against any one, not severe in 
judgment." 

"I am greatly grieved for Valens, who was once a 



Special Commission to Ordained Elders. 137 

presbyter among you, because he so little understands 
the place that was given him in the Church." * 

Mosheim f tells the whole story. "And, indeed, even 
the bishops themselves, whose opulence and authority 
were considerably increased since the reign of Constan- 
tine, began to introduce gradually innovations into the 
forms of ecclesiastical discipline, and to change the an- 
cient government of the Church. Their first step was an 
entire exclusion of the people from all part in the admin- 
istration of ecclesiastical affairs; and afterward they 
by degrees divested even the presbyters of their ancient 
'privileges and their primitive authority, that they might 
have no unfortunate protesters to control their ambi- 
tion or oppose their proceedings, and principally that 
they might either engross to themselves, or distribute 
as they thought proper, the possessions and revenues 
of the Church." 

Of Church government in the second century he says: 
" To the bishops and presbyters the ministers or dea- 
cons were subject, and the latter were divided into a 
variety of classes as the different exigencies of the 
Church required." J 

Bailly, an eminent Romanist authority, who professes 
to give the present sentiments of the Church of Rome 
on this matter, says, after noting the error of Brentius : 
"The second error is that of Antonius de Dominis, who 
says ' that the consent of the whole Church is to be un- 
derstood not less of the laity than of the presbyters and 
prelates.' The third error of certain innovators of our 

* Apostolic Fathers, pp. 72, 73. f Vol. i, p. 172. 

% Vol. i, p. 88. 



138 PRINCIPLES OF CHUECH GOVERNMENT. 

time, namely, the defenders of the Jansenists, who in 
various writings assert that the clergy of the second 
rank, or presbyters, as well as bishops, are judges of 
controversies of faith; . . . that presbyters have by the 
divine right the power of judging concerning ecclesias- 
tical matters." * 

Do we advocate popery ? ~No ! Popery denounces 
the doctrine we teach, that presbyters elected by the 
people are the scriptural governors of the Church, not 
as lords, but always with the consent of the people, as 
the second and third errors in Church government. 

* Lib. I, c. xii, n. 42. 



The "Wesleyan Axiom." 139 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE "WESLEYAN AXIOM." 

One of John Wesley's incidental sayings 'has been 
^transformed into a fundamental "axiom," and used 
against the attempts of any man to arrive by prayerful 
study of the word of God at the thought of the divine 
mind in respect to the government of the Church. That 
so-called "axiom" reads thus: "Neither Christ nor his 
apostles prescribe any particular form of Church gov- 
ernment" So far from being axiomatic, self-evident, 
this maxim has been less understood and more thor- 
oughly misapplied than any other utterance that ever 
tell from the lips of John Wesley. 

If one should listen to the modern expositions of that 
axiom he would infer that John Wesley believed that 
neither Christ nor his apostles prescribed any thing 
whatever, either general or particular, in reference to 
Church government; that the Scriptures are altogether 
silent on a subject of such moment to the peace and 
prosperity of the Church. It is time that this, the 
merest ghost of John Wesley's real sentiments, was 
forever laid. 

Gathering up all of that great man's "liberal say- 
ings " upon this subject, and putting all the difficulties 
at once before us, let us ask, What did John Wesley 
mean by " particular forms " and " determinate plans ? " 



140 Peinciples op Church Government. 

The same as general forms ? the same as those under- 
lying fundamental principles and relations upon which 
certain " determinate " forms and detailed " plans " may- 
be grounded? What did he mean by the statement 
that " offices and officers ought to be varied from time 
to time?" Did he mean that there was no funda- 
mental order of the ministry as distinguished from the 
various offices and officers which might be appointed 
by and in that order? — no permanent pastoral ministry 
with constant relations to the people ? Did John Wes- 
ley ever hold that it was altogether optional with the 
Church as to whether there should be any ministry, or 
any government, or any Church at all? — that it was 
entirely "optional" as to whether the pastor should 
rule the flock, or the flock the pastor ? Is it possible 
that John Wesley was never able to discern, or to 
state distinctly, his views upon the difference there 
is between the constant and the variable, the oblig- 
atory and the optional, the general and the "partic- 
ular?" 

We think not. As Louis Agassiz, the first of scien- 
tific men, lecturing on " The Plan of God in Creation 
for the Government of Nature," was led to say : "As 
a musician who, taking a familiar tune, should play an 
endless number of variations upon it, in each of which 
the fundamental theme may be recognized, so," he says, 
"the idea of the permanent types is played upon by 
the almighty Artist, filling the world with variety." * 
He tells us that " the types (of the vertebrate, articu- 
late, mollusk, and radiate) have existed in all times, 
* Animal Life. 



The " Wesleyan Axiom." 141 

with the same essential structural elements, but under 
different specific forms in the several geological peri- 
ods."* Again, he speaks of the Deity "maintaining 
the organic plan while constantly diversifying the 
mode of expressing it." — P. 48. And still again he 
says, "These still deeper ideal relations — the plans or 
structural conceptions upon which animals are based — 
are adhered to with a tenacity in strange contrast to the 
perishableness of the material forms through which they 
are expressed." — P. 43. And yet, strange as it may 
seem, Agassiz complains that some naturalists fail to 
discern these distinctions. He tells us that "all their 
divergence from the simplicity and grandeur of the 
divisions of the animal kingdom, first recognized by 
Cuvier, arises from their inability to distinguish be- 
tween the essential features of a plan and its various 
modes of execution. They allow the details to shut 
out the plan itself, which exists quite independent of 
special forms." f 

Is it possible that God can have in nature a plan, 
broad aud deep, general and fundamental, quite inde- 
pendent of special forms? and is it possible that distin- 
guished naturalists have allowed the variable "details 
to shut out the plan itself," unable to distinguish be- 
tween " the essential features and the various modes of 
its execution ?" Then it is possible that God may have 
in Church government a plan, broad and deep, general 
and fundamental, quite independent of special forms. 
Then it is possible that late theologians should allow 
details to shut out the plan itself, and this from " their 
* Sketches, p. 32. f Natural History. 



14:2 Principles of Church Government. 

inability to distinguish the essential features of a plan 
from the various modes of its execution ! " 

But as Agassiz did not say " all naturalists," we need 
not say all theologians. It is possible that John Wes- 
ley may have been able to distinguish between the es- 
sential features of God's great plan for the government 
of the Church and any " particular form " of Church 
government; possible that all the great Methodistic 
fathers were able to see the fundamental principles of 
Church government, of which they have spoken so 
strongly, as quite independent of "special," "deter- 
minate," or " particular forms." 

In endeavoring to decipher the " Wesleyan axiom," it 
may be interesting to notice the light in which it was 
regarded by those who sustained the most intimate re- 
lations with the author of that " axiom." The amazing 
unity of doctrine that characterized the writings of 
their times must give to their testimonj^ great weight.* 

And so all great writers on jMethodism, from Watson 
to Bond, although asserting the Wesleyan "axiom" 
again and again, have utterly refused to assert that 
every thing in Church government is optional. They 
stand as a unit in solid phalanx, shield roofing shield, 
for the defense of the position that the pastoral minis- 
try are the divinely constituted teachers and governors 
of the people of God in every age and in every land. 
The minority of one can stand steadily, calmly, proud! \ r , 
gratefully, behind such "rooting" as that. 

That we may get a little nearer the heart of this 

* For the several quotations from the writings of Fletcher, Clarke, 
Watson. Emory, etc., see Chapter XVI. 



The " Wesleyan Axiom." 143 

"axiom" let us look at the source from which John 
Wesley evidently derived it. He says: "I still believe 
the episcopal form of Church government to agree with 
the writings of the apostles ; but that it is prescribed 
in Scripture I do not believe. This, which I once zeal- 
ously espoused, I have been heartily ashamed of ever 
since I read Bishop Stillingfleet's Irenicum. I think he 
has unanswerably proved that neither Christ nor his 
apostles prescribe any particular form of Church gov- 
ernment." Does it follow, as a "resistless inference" 
from this, that " neither Christ nor his apostles prescribe 
any thing fundamental ? " that there are no divine con- 
stants in Church government ? Dr. Whedon says that 
"Dr. Emory, through sixteen pages, quotes from Still- 
ingfleet a variety of pertinent passages, by which 
Wesley's mind was influenced, as every candid mind 
must be influenced." But the very first quotation of 
these sixteen pages demonstrates, as with a lightning 
stroke, that the " axiom," as held by Stillingfleet, 
Wesley, and John Emory, was utterly foreign to the 
relations of pastoral governors to the flock of Christ. 
Read it. Stillingfleet says : " I assert any particular 
form of government agreed on by the governors of the 
Church, consonant to the general rules of the Script- 
ure, to be by divine right." * 

On page 185 Stillingfleet tells us exactly as to who 
and what these " governors " are. 

" Secondly," he says, " the government of the Church 
ought to be administered by officers of divine appoint- 
ment. . . . My meaning is, there must be a standing 
* Irenicum, p. 41 ; Emory's Defense of the Fathers, p. 185. 



144 Principles of Church Government. 

perpetual ministry in the Church of God, whose care 
and employment must be to oversee and govern the 
people of God, and to administer Gospel ordinances 
among them; and this is of divine aud perpetual right." 
And after proving at great length the perpetuity of the 
Christian ministry, he concludes his invincible argu- 
ment with these unambiguous words: " Thus I have now 
asserted the perpetual divine right of a Gospel ministry, 
not only for teaching the word, but administration of 
ordinances and governing the Church as a society, 
which belongs to none but such as are appointed for it, 
who are the same with the dispensers of the word, as 
appears from the titles, qyovfievol (agoumenoi), ixoolora- 
fievoi {proistamenoi), TrdtfXEvtg ^oimenes), governors, 
rulers, pastors, all which necessarily imply a governing 
power." 

Language more unqualified, sharp, and incisive could 
not be used, evidencing beyond the possibility of a 
question that this " axiom," as drawn from Stillingfleet 
direct, had not the slightest possible reference to the 
fundamental obligation laid by the Holy Ghost upon 
the pastoral ministry to govern, and upon the laity to 
submit to "them that have the rule over" them "in the 
Lord." 

Stillingfleet, Wesley, and Emory had sole reference 
to the "particular for rn " and "determinate plans" 
upon which the pastoral "governors of the Church " 
might agree in the exercise of an authority enjoined of 
God. 

Jackson, in his Life of Charles Wesley, in comment- 
ing on the "axiom" says: "What John Wesley ob- 



The " Wesleyan Axiom." 145 

jected to was the assumption that diocesan episcopacy, 
possessing the exclusive power of ordination and gov- 
ernment, was instituted by Christ, and is binding in all 
ages upon the universal Church of Christ." — -P. 722. 
Or, as he might perhaps more justly have said, that 
Wesley objected to the exclusive pretensions of any de- 
terminate " form " or " plan " " agreed on by the gov- 
ernors of the Church." Stillingfleet wrote especially 
to allay the fury of the contest between the pretentious 
Episcopacy on the one hand, and the equally exclusive 
Presbyterians and Independents on the other — a contest 
styled by Baxter the Bellum Episcopi (War of the 
Bishops); a war second only to that which, according 
to John Milton, took place in heaven when archangels 
met "addressed for fight unspeakable;" a war that 
placed the heavy heel of the anti-Episcopal Cromwell 
upon the neck of that most zealous of all prelatical ad- 
vocates among kings, Charles I.; a war whose thunders 
have shaken all Europe to its center, the last dying dis- 
sonances of which have been so recently rocking the 
very foundations of the meekest of all episcopates — 
less even than presbyterial "bishops!" "bishops," 
without even the prerogative of a layman — a vote in 
making " rules and regulations " for the government of 
the Church of God. 

If there yet remains the slightest doubt as to the sig- 
nificance of the " Wesleyan axiom," let us turn directly 
to John Wesley himself. What did he mean by that 
"axiom?" That every thing in Church government 
was optional ? every thing at the dictate of expediency 

or convenience ? nothing prescribed ? nothing enjoined ? 
10 



146 Principles of Chuech Goveenment. 

no divine constants ? no general, fundamental, and con- 
servative principles underlying the radical progress of 
the Church through the ages? 

What did John Wesley think and write about the 
order of pastoral elders? That will take close care 
of the " axiom " forever ! We thank God that he has 
left on record clear and decisive statements. 

1. He never held that the pastoral ministry were 
simply the executive officers of the people, deriving 
their sole authority or power from them, and simply 
responsible to them. John Wesley said: " The suppo- 
sition that the people are the origin of power is every 
way indefensible. Common sense brings us back to the 
grand truth — there is no power but of God." * 

2. He never held that the laity or the people possessed 
sole authority to commission elders as preachers of the 
word. .On Matt, x, 5, he says: "These twelve Jesus 
sent forth, herein exercising his supreme authority as 
God, and none but God can give men authority to 
preach his word." f 

3. He never held that the people had, either by nature 
or Scripture, sole authority or power to constitute their 
rulers in the Church. In his note on Acts xx, 17, 
"Take heed to yourselves," etc., he thus paraphrases 
the language of the apostle: "I now devolve my care 
upon you, first to yourselves, and then to the flock over 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers; for no 
man or number of men can constitute an overseer, 
bishop, or any other Christian minister: to do this is 
the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost." 

* Works, vol. vi, p. 210. f Notes, in loco. 



The " Wesleyan Axiom." 147 

Thus it appears that John Wesley held that the min- 
istry — the pastoral elders called of God and elected by 
the people — were the rulers of the Church, and that 
this was of perpetual and divine obligation. In support 
of this proposition he frequently appealed to " the ora- 
cles of God," and taught that the optional in Church 
government is the domain over which the Scriptures 
have enthroned the pastor, elder, or bishop. 

" The sum is," he says, " it is the duty of every pri- 
vate Christian to obey his spiritual pastor, by either 
doing or leaving undone any thing of an indifferent 
[that is, optional] nature — that is, any thing in no way 
determined in the word of God. But how little is this 
understood in the Protestant world! ... And yet 
there is not a more express command, either in the 
Old or New Testament. No words can be more 
clear and plain; no command more direct and posi- 
tive." * 

And yet " these words, clear and plain ; this com- 
mand, direct and positive," by clothing the pastor with 
authority in all things, indifferent or optional, carries 
his prerogative as "legislator" over the whole field of 
" rules and regulations " in the spiritual administration 
of the Church — a field bounded on the one hand by what 
God has positively commanded, and on the other by 
what God has expressly forbidden. Thus the " Wes- 
leyan axiom," so far from giving freedom from the 
Scriptures in Church government, as most have 
strangely supposed, gives freedom only to the book, 
sets us face to face with the open word, and bids 
* Ser., vol. ii, p. 321. 



148 Principles of Church Government. 

us bound our liberties, our option, by the changeless law 
of the Lord. John Wesley says: " Try every thing by 
the written word; let all bow down before it." Luther: 
" God speaks, men, worms listen — let us all bow down 
and kiss the word." And Chrysostom : "Hear, O all 
ye laymen ! provide yourselves with the Holy Script- 
ures, that medicine of the soul." 



Things Forbidden to Governors of Church. 149 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE THINGS FORBIDDEN TO THE GOVERNORS OF THE 
CHURCH. 

Let us now, in the very spirit of this " axiom," take 
prayerful note of the particulars in which the op- 
tional freedom of the "governors of the Church" is 
bounded: 

We will first look at the positive prohibitions of the 
word. The pastoral elders are forbidden to " lord it 
over God's heritage " — 

1. To lord it over the bodies of men, to restrain the 
person or liberty of the laity. Such penal sanctions be- 
long to the civil magistracy alone. That which is 
commended in the State is positively forbidden in the 
Church, evidencing the measureless remove of the 
Church from the province and principles of the State. 
"The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over 
them, and they that are great exercise authority upon 
them. Bat it shall not be so among you. But whoso- 
ever will be great among you, let him be your minister " 
(diafcovoc— literally, a one dusty from running," a gen- 
uine itinerant!) "and whosoever will be chief among 
you, let him be your servant " {dovhog — literally, a slave, 
a term expressive of the most abject devotion to the in- 
terests of the laity). It is to be a ministry of service, 
not of domination. But this even does not express the 
depths to which, in our loving service, aU are to go 



152 Principles of Church Government. 

to the same." * And such a Church, organized accord- 
ing to the " ordinance of Christ," operating through its 
divinely appointed agencies or organs, " may ordain, 
change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, . . . so that 
nothing be ordained against God's word." f 

2. Again, ministers are not to lord it over the con- 
sciences of men. " Call no man Kadrjynrrjg (ruler of the 
conscience), for one is your Master, even Christ." And 
yet God's word, Christ's law, which alone binds the con- 
science, enjoins obedience to pastors in all things " op- 
tional," or where conscience is not concerned, " so that 
nothing be ordained against God's word." The twen- 
ty-second article of our religion sets forth this distinc- 
tion with great clearness: " Whosoever, through his 
private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly 
break the (optional) rites and ceremonies of the Church 
to which he belongs, which are not repugnant to the 
word of God, and are approved by common authority f 
ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear," etc. 

In all matters, however, where conscience is con- 
cerned, there no human authority must intervene; 
there the rights, the integrity of the responsible soul* 
must be respected ; there the judgment must assert for 
itself; there the pure reason, to which God appeals, 
must vindicate its godlike prerogative, and, lifting it- 
self above the domination of all powers, whether of 
majorities or autocracies, it must decide as in the sight 
of God, and with reference to the awards of an 
eternity. 

To such souls, enfranchised of God, the ministry are 
* Methodist Discipline. f Ibid. 



Things Forbidden to Governors of Church. 153 

to come not with inquisitorial terrors, but with the joy- 
ous, robust spirit of free inquiry. Thoughts, not 
thumbscrews; facts, not fagots; reason, not racks; dem- 
onstrations, not death — these are the agencies by 
which a divinely commissioned ministry are to reach and 
sway the free and independent judgments of the world 
— the self -poised wills and the quickened consciences of 
the race. As inviolate as the conscience of the laity, so 
must the conscience of the ministry be. Let no major- 
ities bar that conscience. 

3. The ministry are forbidden to lord it over the 
hopes and fears of men by ruling With hierarchical 
powers. The hiercis, or sacerdotal priests, called by 
the Hebrews cohenim, " were appointed for the express 
purpose of offering sacrifices in the name and on behalf 
of the people. They alone were allowed to make ob- 
lations and burn incense before the Lord, and only 
through them were the people to approach him." * 

The usurpation of governmental powers by men 
clothed with the awful terrors of so sacred an office has 
always resulted in the most fearful despotisms known 
in the annals of mankind. A hierarchy is the most un- 
scriptural of all governments, hostile alike to the spirit 
of both dispensations. Nothing could be more offensive 
to God. Hear the word of the Lord : "A wonderful and 
horrible thing is committed in the land ; the prophets 
prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their 
means ; and my people love to have it so and what 
will he do in the end thereof ? " Jer. v, 30, 31. 

" The rulers of the Church under the Gospel," says 
* Archbishop Whately, Brit. Cyclop., vol. i. 



154 Principles of Church Government. 

Stillingfleet, "do not properly succeed the priests and 
the Levites under the law."* "The Levitical caste," 
says Stanley, " never corresponded to what we should 
call the clergy. They (the priests) never claimed nor 
were intended to govern the nation" f And yet the cry, 
Hierarchy ! hierarchy ! (the rule of priests,) has been 
rung out over all the Church. A hierarchy ! the simple 
rule of the presbuteroi (not the hiereis), called of God, 
and elected by the people. Amazing ! The only 
"hierarchy" of which we have knowledge in Meth- 
odism to-day — the rule of the hiereis — " clothed in 
pontifical robes," is that of the so-called "priesthood of 
the people" who claim the right to rule the Church of 
God by virtue of their sacerdotal or priestly functions ! 
" The priesthood of the people," says the authority, " is 
the dogmatic basis of the lay movement." What ! 
when "priests were never intended to govern! " when 
a hierarchy — the government of priests — is so justly 
offensive to both God and man ! Amazing! And yet 
on this "bridge of fog" the "lay movement" has gone 
over : "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed 
in the land ! the priests bear rule, and the people love 
to have it so ! " 

No, the hiereis, the cohenim, the Levitical priests 
were never the rulers. The zaJcenim, " the elders of 
Israel," says Dr. Strong's Cyclopedia, "had been the 
(yepovoia) senate of the people ever since they had 
been a people. The position which the elders held in 
the Mosaic constitution is described as that of repre- 
sentatives of the people, so much so that the elders and 
* Irenicum, p. 228. \ Jewish Church, p. 176. 



Things Foebidden to Goveenoes of Chuech. 155 

people are occasionally used as equivalent terms. 
Their authority was undefined, and extended to all 
matters pertaining to the public weal ; nor did the 
people question the validity of their acts even when 
they disapproved of them." "The creation of the 
office of elder is nowhere recorded in the New Testa- 
ment, as is the case of deacons and apostles, because the 
latter offices were created to meet new and special 
emergencies, while the former was transmitted from 
the earliest times. In other words, the office of the 
elder was the only permanent essential office of the Church 
under either dispensation" The distinguished doctor 
goes on to say, "The elders of the New Testament 
were plainly pastors (Eph. iv, 11), bishops,, or over- 
seers (Acts xx, 28), leaders and rulers (lleb. xiii, 7, 17) 
of the flock. . . . But they were not only leaders and 
rulers, but also the regular teachers of the congrega- 
tion, to whom pertained officially the exposition of the 
Scriptures and the preaching of the Gospel! " There- 
fore all hail the lay movement — the priesthood of the 

people! 

" The' world has gone mad, my masters ! " 

The " priesthood of believers," as set forth in the 
Scriptures, is a glorious doctrine, and we would like to 
aid our friends in " scattering it like lightning over all 
the heavens of the Church." As the original etymology 
of the term cohen in Arabic and Hebrew would indi- 
cate, it is the exalted privilege of the priesthood of the 
people "to draw near "the divine presence — to enter 
the holiest of holies by the blood of Jesus, and to pre- 
vail with God. This is the ladder Jacob saw reach- 



156 Principles of Church Government. 

ing unto heaven, but is no bridge to earthly rule. It 
is the devout prostration of the soul before God, not 
the domination of man over man. 

To those who have set forth this general priesthood 
of believers as incompatible with a special ministry we 
would simply refer them to Exod. xix, 5, 6 : " If ye 
will obey my voice and keep my covenant, then ye 
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy 
nation." Did this general priesthood of the people in 
the time of Moses preclude a special priesthood then? 
Why should it preclude a special ministry now? It 
mortifies me very much to be compelled to say that 
the antagonism of a general priesthood of the people 
to the authority of the elders called of God to govern 
in the Church dates back to a very high antiquity. 
" And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the 
children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the 
assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown : 
and they gathered themselves together against Moses 
and against Aaron, and. said unto them, Ye take too 
much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, 
every one of them, and the Lord is among them : where- 
fore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation 
of the Lord? Num. xvi, 2, 3. God immediately gave 
to all Israel, in the fate of these distinguished advocates, 
some lessons as to the merit of such movements against 
the authority of those whom God " hath chosen," the sal- 
utary effects of which seem to have been quite lost of 
late. Perhaps the Lord has changed ! Perhaps the 
whole grand series of object lessons which taught the 
world that God was attentive to every thing in the 



Things Forbidden to Governors of Church. 157 

old dispensation — that " every pin of the tabernacle 
was important" — was only to demonstrate to us that 
the great Head of the Church under the Gospel cares 
for nothing ! 

4. Again, the ministry have no authority to lord it 
over the private rights of the laity. In all cases of 
trespass Jesus has impaneled the whole Church as 
jurors. Christ ordains, let every man be tried before 
his peers. But who would affirm that because of the 
juror right in a case of trespass, therefore every member 
of the Church or State is a legislator to enact, an 
official judge to expound the law, or to pronounce 
judgment in the case ? The sentence, "Let him be to 
thee as a heathen and a publican," carries the mind to 
a conclusion at once in perfect harmony with the entire 
scope of Scripture, and presents us here again with the 
spiritual personality of the Church, a moral organism, 
performing its appropriate functions through its own 
divinely appointed organs. 

5. The ministry are forbidden "to lord it" over the 
finances of the laity. The right of taxation belongs to 
the State, not to the Church. It is only in those abnor- 
mal and execrable unions of Church and State that the 
arbitrary may supplant the voluntary principle which 
lies at the very foundations of all scriptural Church 
movements. God, the alone proprietor, has the sole 
right to tax the clergy and the laity; God only can 
ordain that every member of the Church shall " lay by 
him in store as God hath prospered him." "Say I 
these things as a man?" asks Paul, "or saith not the 
law the same also ? For it is written in the law of 



158 Principles of Church Government. 

Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that 
treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen ? 
. . . Do ye not know that they which minister about 
holy things live of the things of the temple ? and they 
which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar ? 
Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach 
the Gospel should live of the Gospel." 1 Cor. ix, 8, 9, 
13, 14. "Let him that is taught in the word commu- 
nicate unto him that teacheth in all good tihngs." 
Gal. vi, 6. 

From these enactments of the Lord ministers have 
no authority to absolve the laity. 

And yet, forsooth, it is declared that " the General 
Conference has enacted a new and unscriptural condi- 
tion of Church membership;" that the General Con- 
ference has proceeded to "tax the membership;" and 
that " laymen ought at once to be admitted ; " that if 
Dr. Bond and Bishop Emory, these old veterans in op- 
position, were but to come to life under the new order 
of things " they would declare at once for lay delega- 
tion," and, flinging out their banners, would head the 
column of laymen, and charge for the very center of 
the General Conference, etc. We are alarmed ! What 
new condition ? What " act " of taxation ? What new 
order of things ? 

" Quest. Will you contribute of your earthly substance 
according to your ability (as God hath prospered you) 
to the support of the Gospel and the various benevo- 
lent enterprises of the Church?" " Ans. I will." "A 
new condition ! " Our editors surely never could have 
read that most brilliant epitome of our faith and prac- 



Things Forbidden to Governors of Church. 159 

tice given by one of the mothers in Israel, so often 
quoted on Wesleyan platforms in England : " Meth- 
odism—it is repentance toward God, faith in our Lord 
Jesus Christ, a penny a week, and a shilling a quarter." 
" A new condition ! " That old lady's spirit should 
have been aroused. She should have expressed her 
mind. " Organs " should have been established, docu- 
ments circulated, conventions held, and a revolution on 
the " no representation no taxation " basis inaugurated, 
and short work have been made with John Wesley. 
" A new condition ! " If there ever was an impression 
epidemic in all Methodistic space, and chronic in all 
Methodistic history, it is the impression that there is 
no end to Methodistic giving ! But, seriously, have 
our preachers recourse to the law for the collection of 
their salaries ? Are the assessments upon the members 
made by ministers? Do the laymen now coming in 
propose to tax the laity, and to enforce collection by 
the secular arm? Could Dr. Bond or Emory, rising 
from their hallowed graves, pronounce a benediction 
upon a procedure so preposterous ? Alas this is but 
another arch of the "bridge of fog" fallen through ! 

6. The ministry are forbidden to usurp the secular 
functions of the laity, especially enjoined upon them by 
the word of God. Read carefully Acts vi, 2-7, and you 
will learn how " seven men (laymen) of honest report " 
were by the divinely inspired apostles appointed over 
all the temporal business of the Church. 

7. The ministry have no lordly power to prevent the 
exercise of the theo-democratic right of the laity to 
choose their own spiritual pastors or rulers. 



158 Principles of Church Government. 

Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that 
treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen ? 
. . . Do ye not know that they which minister about 
holy things live of the things of the temple ? and they 
which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar ? 
Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach 
the Gospel should live of the Gospel." 1 Cor. ix, 8, 9, 
13, 14. "Let him that is taught in the word commu- 
nicate unto him that teacheth in all good tihngs." 
Gal. vi, 6. 

From these enactments of the Lord ministers have 
no authority to absolve the laity. 

And yet, forsooth, it is declared that " the General 
Conference has enacted a new and unscriptural condi- 
tion of Church membership;" that the General Con- 
ference has proceeded to "tax the membership;" and 
that "laymen ought at once to be admitted;" that if 
Dr. Bond and Bishop Emory, these old veterans in op- 
position, were but to come to life under the new order 
of things " they would declare at once for lay delega- 
tion," and, flinging out their banners, would head the 
column of laymen, and charge for the very center of 
the General Conference, etc. We are alarmed ! What 
new condition ? What " act " of taxation ? What new 
order of things ? 

" Quest. Will you contribute of your earthly substance 
according to your ability (as God hath prospered you) 
to the support of the Gospel and the various benevo- 
lent enterprises of the Church ? " " Ans. I will." " A 
new condition ! " Our editors surely never could have 
read that most brilliant epitome of our faith and prac- 



Things Forbidden to Governors of Church. 159 

tice given by one of the mothers in Israel, so often 
quoted on Wesleyan platforms in England : " Meth- 
odism—it is repentance toward God, faith in our Lord 
Jesus Christ, a penny a week, and a shilling a quarter." 
" A new condition ! " That old lady's spirit should 
have been aroused. She should have expressed her 
mind. " Organs " should have been established, docu- 
ments circulated, conventions held, and a revolution on 
the " no representation no taxation " basis inaugurated, 
and short work have been made Avith John Wesley. 
" A new condition ! " If there ever was an impression 
epidemic in all Methodistic space, and chronic in all 
Methodistic history, it is the impression that there is 
no end to Methodistic giving ! But, seriously, have 
our preachers recourse to the law for the collection of 
their salaries ? Are the assessments upon the members 
made by ministers ? Do the laymen now coming in 
propose to tax the laity, and to enforce collection by 
the secular arm? Could Dr. Bond or Emory, rising 
from their hallowed graves, pronounce a benediction 
upon a procedure so preposterous ? Alas this is but 
another arch of the "bridge of fog" fallen through ! 

6. The ministry are forbidden to usurp the secular 
functions of the laity, especially enjoined upon them by 
the word of God. Read carefully Acts vi, 2-7, and you 
will learn how "seven men (laymen) of honest report" 
were by the divinely inspired apostles appointed over 
all the temporal business of the Church. 

1. The ministry have no lordly power to prevent the 
exercise of the theo-democratic right of the laity to 
choose their own spiritual pastors or rulers. 



160 Principles of Church Government. 

In Alford's English New Testament Acts xiv, 23, is 
thus rendered : "And when they had elected them 
elders in every church," etc. ; and in his notes on the 
Greek text he says, "Nor is there any reason for de- 
parting from the usual meaning of electing by show of 
hands," and adds, "The apostles may have admitted by 
ordination those presbyters whom the churches elected" 
(in loco). 

The New Testament method allows God to cast the 
first ballot, the people themselves being judges of the 
evidences of the divine call ; and such a one, so chosen 
by the suffrages of the whole Church, is as emphatic- 
ally the representative of the people as though he were 
not by virtue of his divine call " the glory of Christ.''* 
Fully conscious of the powerful and constant pressure 
of the democratic sentiment in our free country, which 
has at last brought the leading writers of our Church 
to-day into direct and almost unanimous conflict with 
all the great founders of Methodism — nay, more, that 
has brought the authoritative action of the Church to 
the solemn objurgation of the very principles upon 
which the Church wns organized — we can but express 
our profoundest regrets that our leaders had not sought 
to harmonize our polity not only with the spirit of the 
age, but with the eternal principle of God's word, not 
by denying to the eldership the authority which all our 
fathers believed they held by divine right, but by a 
thorough examination of the theo-democratic basis on 
which that authority rests. Would to heaven that we 
had begun to modify our system at the other extreme 
by rendering to the people, to the entire adult member- 



Things Forbidden to Governors of Church. 161 

ship, what we have consistently held theoretically from 
the beginning to be their right, the right to choose 
their rulers, their elders, their presbyters or bishops, 
those whom the people believe are fully qualified and 
called of God to that responsible work ! 

8. Lastly, the ministry have no lordly power or au- 
thority to bar the laity from the performance of their 
legitimate functions in the General Councils of the 
Church. The laity were present in the first General 
Council — in all the great councils — of the primitive 
Church, but with their own peculiar functions.* 

So the laity by right ought to be present in the Gen- 
eral Councils or Conferences of Methodism, and their 
voices should be heard if they so desire in all the 
deliberations of the Church, but according to the plan 
and will of God. 

* For proof see Chapter XVII. 
11 



162 Principles of Church Government. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE OPTIONAL IN CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

From this brief survey of the limitations of our lib- 
erties we may safely lay down the following proposi- 
tions : 

1. It is optional with the people either to exercise or 
not to exercise an evident scriptural right— a right 
Methodism has always acknowledged — a right to par- 
ticipate more generally in the primary election of all 
our Church rulers. 

2. It is optional with the members of the Church, ac- 
cording as in their godly judgment the secular interests 
of the Church may require, either to enter or refrain 
from entering the Annual or General Conferences. If 
in their judgment the secular interests of the Church 
are suffering through their absence, they ought to de- 
mand admittance, for they are charged especially with 
the department of secularities, and " it is required of 
stewards that a man be found faithful." 

3. It would not be optional with the presbyters to 
refuse to accede to this demand, for the word places 
on them the especial care of all secularities in the 
Church. 

4. It is, however, optional with the presbyters, as 
they have been called and elected to the general over- 
sight of all the interests of the Church, as to 



The Optional in Church Government. 163 

whether this department should be organized as a 
separate house, or as a committee of their own 
body especially charged with the ministration of 
finance. 

5. It is optional with the body of the Presbytery or 
governors of the Church, as it shall seem expedient, 
either to retain all governing power as a senate of 
elders, as a committee of the whole, or to organize in 
separate committees with distinctive functions. In 
other words, it is optional with the presbyters to enact 
any "particular form," any "determinate plan," of 
Church government consonant to the general rules of 
Scripture, with such "offices and officers" as they may 
deem expedient. 

6. It is optional with the presbyters to delegate to one 
or more of their own number — not to the people — for a 
limited time, or during effective service, one or more 
of the scriptural functions of the presbytery, for the 
good of the Church; but it is not optional with even a 
majority of the presbyters to deprive a presbyter in 
good standing of any prerogatives against his will. Our 
bishops, as scriptural presbyters in order and general 
superintendents in office, cannot be lawfully denied a 
voice in making rules and regulations for the govern- 
ment of the Church of God. 

7. It would be optional for the presbyters, if they saw 
expedient for the safety of the Church against hasty 
legislation, to divide their own number into two houses. 
It would be optional to so divide that either one half 
of the bishops should be in each house, or so that one 
body might appropriately be styled the House of 



161 Principles of Church Government. 

General Superintendents, and the other the House of 
Presbyters. 

8. It would also be optional with the bishops and 
presbyters to associate with them a third house of the 
laity, but not, as in the Episcopal Church, with power 
to bar the action of both the houses of bishops and 
presbyters. That would be in direct violation of the 
fundamental principles of scriptural Church govern- 
ment; that would do violence to the constitution of the 
Methodist Church as it has existed from the beginning; 
a virtual uprooting and upturning of the ecclesiastical 
tree as Christ planted it, placing blossoms and fruit 
under the soil with roots in the air. 

9. It would be optional for the General Conference 
at any time to organize, as Bishop Ames at the last 
General Conference suggested with thoroughly states- 
manlike views, in two houses, with concurrent powers 
on all subjects excepting "ministerial administration 
and character;" or, if it should be thought expedient, 
it will be optional to organize three houses with concur- 
rent powers on all subjects, yet saving the scriptural 
and Methodistic principle of pastoral authority, by 
making the concurrence of but two houses necessary to 
complete an action — the responsibility of every action, 
of course, resting with one or the other of the clerical 
bodies. In case of the organization of three concurrent 
houses, the initiative in all measures relating to moral 
discipline, ministerial adminstration and the ritual 
should be with the House of Presbyters; the initiative 
in all measures relating to finance, publishing interests, 
etc., should originate in the House of Lay Representa- 



The Optional in Church Government. 165 

tives; the House of General Superintendents, as the 
chief pastors of the Church, alone having a negative 
upon the action of the House of Lay Representatives. 

In favor of such an optional organization we urge the 
following considerations: 

1. It saves the fundamental principles of the Holy 
Scripture relating to the duty of the Christian ministry, 
as the douloi of Jesus Christ, to serve the Church as its 
pastoral governors. 

2. It will save not only the spirit of the Wesleyan 
axiom, but the very organic spirit of Methodism, as em- 
bodied by John Wesley, John Fletcher, Richard Wat- 
son, John Emory, and Dr. Bond — the authoritative rule 
of pastors called of God and elected by the people, a 
principle worth saving. 

3. It can save us our reproach in a thoroughly demo- 
cratic age. (a) Let the right of elective franchise be 
extended to the entire adult membership in all our 
primary elections to the Annual Conferences, so that our 
preachers recommended for admission and our laymen 
sent up shall alike be the representatives of the people. 

(b) Let all members of the Annual Conferences, lay and 
clerical, join in the election of all delegates to the Gen- 
eral Conference, so that these delegates, both clerical 
and lay, shall be the recognized representatives of the 
people in the "law-making" body of the Church, but 
each in the held of their own respective responsibilities. 

(c) Let these representatives of the people unite in the 
election of all bishops and other officers of the General 
Conference, and by thus constituting our bishops them- 
selves "the messengers," "the chosen of the Churches," 



166 Principles of Church Government. 

as well as " the glory of Christ," we shall secure a gen- 
uine representation of the people in every branch of 
our legislative councils. Who is it that maintains that 
the ministry is a caste, and cannot, therefore, represent 
the people? "If any, speak; for him have I of- 
fended." 

4. It will save us from bitterness and ceaseless con- 
flicts. The spirit of antagonism is in "the plan" — 
incorporate and constitutional. The poison of asps is 
there: jealousy shall express it, and ambition shall pro- 
ject it into the very soul of the Church, poisoning its 
life currents, and leading ultimately to the utter disso- 
lution of the body. 

5. It will save us from the odium of lay popery, 
possible under the present plan of organization. "At 
all times when the General Conference is met, it shall 
take two thirds of the whole number of ministerial and 
lay delegates to form a quorum for the transaction of 
business." KT 3 It does not say two thirds of either 
order elect, but "two thirds of the whole number." (! !) 
"The whole number of ministerial and lay delegates" 
in the present body is 421, of whom 292 are clerical 
and 129 are lay. Two thirds of this "whole number" 
is 280-f, a "quorum." With 280 ministerial delegates 
and one lay delegate present we have 281, or one third of 
one more than " two thirds of the whole number," (!!) and 
with this " quorum" the body is ready, of course, for the 
" transaction of business." (!!) But the ministerial and 
lay delegates " shall vote separately whenever such sep- 
arate vote shall be demanded by one third of either 
order (in the quorum, of course), and in such cases the 



The Optional in Church Government. 167 

concurrent vote of both orders shall be necessary to 
complete an action." (! !) JlgfP' It is nowhere said, when- 
ever such separate vote shall be demanded by one third 
of the tohole number elected in either order; and, indeed, 
as seen above, such a construction is not at all necessary 
to secure a " quorum." So, if one third of this layman 
in excess of the " quorum " shall demand a separate vote, 
and two thirds of him " refuse to concur! " we have at 
least in this possible instance the onty possible pope in 
Methodism, barring, by his individual will, not only the 
scriptural authority of the 280 ministerial delegates, but 
through them the ten thousand ministers of the Method- 
ist Church. And this is democracy! this is what is 
meant by "no distinctions!" O! it's only the "nine- 
teenth century ! " A lay pope possible! and you "ac- 
cept the situation?" " Yes," "yes;" two hundred and 
ninety times " yes." Talk of an " eternity " as too long 
for opposition to such a " plan ? " No, sir. " Aiovag 
tcdv cLHDvuv" — "For ever and for ever." 

6. It will save us from the evils that inevitably in- 
here in all singly constituted deliberative bodies, and 
which, in a body like ours, under such a pressure of busi- 
ness and limited in time, must be enhanced to an alarm- 
ing degree. 

The law-making bodies of the several States of our 
American Union have set examples which we will do 
well to follow. The Legislatures of Pennsylvania and 
Georgia consisted originally of a single house. " The 
instability and passion," says Chancellor Kent, " which 
marked their proceedings were very visible at the time, 
and the subject of much public animadversion; and in 



168 Principles of Church Government. 

the subsequent reform of their constitutions the people 
were so sensible of this defect, and of the inconvenience 
they had suffered from it, that in both States a senate 
was introduced. No portion of the political history of 
mankind is more full of instructive lessons on this sub- 
ject, or contains more striking proofs of the faction, 
instability, and misery of States under the dominion of 
a single unchecked assembly, than that of the Italian 
republics of the Middle Ages, which arose with great 
numbers, and with dazzling but transient splendor, in 
the interval between the fall of the Western and the 
Eastern empires of the Romans. They were all alike 
ill-constituted, with a single unbalanced asspmbly. 
They were all alike miserable, and all ended in similar 
disgrace. Many speculative writers and theoretical 
politicians about the time of the commencement of the 
French Revolution were struck with the simplicity of a 
legislature with a single assembly, and concluded that 
more than one house was useless and expensive. . . . 
The visionary notions [this is still Chancellor Kent] of a 
single house of the legislature were carried into the 
constitution by the French Assembly in 1791. 'The 
very nature of things,' said the intemperate and cruel 
politicians of that assembly, ' was adverse to every di- 
vision of the legislative body, and that as the nation 
which was represented was one, so the representative 
body ought to be one also. The will of the nation was 
indivisible, and so ought to be the voice that pro- 
nounced it.' By such reasoning the Assembly of 
France, consisting of upward of one thousand mem- 
bers, after a short and tumultuous debate, almost unan- 



The Optional in Church Government. 169 

imously voted to reject the proposition for an upper 
house. The same false and vicious principles continued 
for some time longer to prevail with the theorists of 
that country, and a single house was likewise established 
in the plan of government for 1793. The instability 
and violent measures of that convention, which con- 
tinued for some years to fill all Europe with astonish- 
ment and horror, tended to display in a most forcible 
and affecting light the miseries of a single unchecked 
body of men clothed with all the legislative power of 
the State." * 

"No people," says Boisy d'Anglas in 1795, " can tes- 
tify to the world with more truth and sincerity than 
Frenchmen can do the dangers inherent in a single 
legislative assembly, and the disastrous point to which 
factions may mislead an assembly without reins or 
counterpoise." 

The theories and consequent convulsions of the 
French National Assembly led John Adams to give- to 
the world his great work entitled, A Defense of the 
American Constitution, a work of immense learning, 
research, and ability. After reviewing the history of 
every known government with especial reference to this 
point, he gives us the sum of all in the conclusion: 
" Single assemblies without check or balance in a gov- 
ernment, with all authority collected into one center, 
have been visionary, violent, intriguing, corrupt, and 
tyrannical dominations of majorities over minorities." 

" Under the Confederation," says Chief Justice 
Story, " the whole legislative power of the Union was 
* Kent's Commentary, p, 122. 



170 Principles of Church Government. 

confined to a single branch, and, limited as that power 
was, this concentration of it in a single body was 
deemed a prominent defect. The Constitution, on the 
other hand, adopts as a fundamental rule the exer- 
cise of the legislative power in two distinct and in- 
dependent branches. The advantages of this division 
are, in the first place, that it interposes a check upon 
undue, hasty, and oppressive legislation. In the next 
place, it interposes a barrier against the strong pro- 
pensity of all public bodies to accumulate all power, 
patronage, and influence in their own hands. In the 
next place, it operates indirectly to retard, if not 
wholly to prevent, the success of the efforts of a few 
popular leaders, by their combinations and intrigues in 
a single body, to carry their own personal, private, of 
party objects into effect, unconnected with the public 
good. In the next place, it secures a deliberate review 
of the same measures by independent minds in differ- 
ent branches of government engaged in the same hab- 
its of legislation, but organized upon a different system 
of elections. In the last place it affords greater secu- 
rities to public liberty, by requiring the co-operation of 
different bodies which can scarcely ever, if properly or- 
ganized, embrace the same sectional or local interests 
or influences in exactly the same proportion as a single 
body. The value of such a separate organization will, 
of course, be greatly enhanced the more the elements 
of which each body is composed differ from each other 
in the mode of choice, in the qualifications, and in the 
duration of office of members; provided due intelligence 
and virtue are secured in each body. All these consid- 



The Optional in Church Government. 171 

erations had great weight in the convention which 
framed the Constitution of the United States." * 

De Lolme, in his great work on the English Consti- 
tution, says : " For securing the Constitution of the 
State it is indispensably necessary to restrain the legis- 
lative authority; and the legislature to be restrained 
must be absolutely divided; for whatever laws it may 
make to restrain itself, they never can be, relatively to 
it, any thing more than simple resolutions. As those 
bars which it might erect to stop its own motions must 
then be within it and rest upon it. they can be no bars. 
But each of the parts into which the legislature is di- 
vided can serve as bars to the motions of the others. 
If it has been divided into only two parts, it is proba- 
ble that they will not in all cases unite either for doing 
or undoing. If it has been divided into three parts, 
the probability that no changes will be made is greatly 
increased. Nay, more, as a kind of point of honor 
will naturally take place between these different parts 
of the legislature, they will therefore be led to offer to 
each other only such propositions as will, at least, be 
plausible, and all very prejudiced changes will thus be 
prevented, as it were, before their birth." — P. 231. 

7. The life-tenure of our bishops in one of the co- 
ordinate branches of the " legislature " will save us 
from fickle and capricious legislation. Let Alexander 
Hamilton — "the genius who," according to Guizot, 
" most powerfully contributed to introduce into the 
Constitution of the United States every element of or- 
der, of force, and of duration in it," and " who must 
* Story on Constitution, p. 50. 



172 Principles of Church Government. 

be classed among the men who have best known the 
vital principles and fundamental conditions of govern- 
ment worthy of the name" — let him speak for us: 
" The objects of government may be divided into two 
general classes — the one depending on measures which 
have singly an immediate and sensible operation ; the 
other depending on a succession of well-chosen and 
well-connected measures which have a gradual and, per- 
haps, unobserved action. The importance of the latter 
description to the collective and permanent welfare of 
every country needs no explanation. And yet it is evi- 
dent that an assembly elected for so short a term as to 
be unable to provide more than one or two links in a 
chain of measures on which the general welfare may 
essentially depend ought not to be answerable for the 
final result. The proper remedy for this defect must 
be an additional body in the legislative department, 
which, having a sufficient permanency to provide for 
such objects as require a continued attention and a train 
of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable 
for these objects." * 

8. While the division of the conference into three 
houses will secure the delay necessary to perfect each 
individual measure, yet, on the principle that underlies 
the practical wisdom of a division of labor in the ag- 
gregate, we shall save time. This, however, to those 
whose souls are more burdened for the present and 
future welfare of the Church than for any personal in- 
terests, will be but a secondary consideration. Better 
cut down the representation, and fill the delegations 
* Ftdci alist. 



The Optional in Church Government. 173 

with men who can ami will take time before unsettling 
the very foundations of the Church — time to weigh the 
value of every proposed change; time to perfect every 
measure ; time to bring all its legislation into symmet- 
rical oneness and harmony with the organic genius of 
the Church; time to save us from the opprobrium that 
must more or less attach to every single assembly on 
the " mass-meeting " principle. 

This is the great transition movement. " The past, 
at least, is secure ; " the future, with all the burden of 
untried experiments, is at our doors. O, could we 
shape the coming events into harmony with the organic 
life of the Church, the future would be as secure as the 
past ! The triumphs of the last century would be re- 
peated, and, re-enforced by the vigorous body of devout 
and gifted laymen, especially in the department as- 
signed them in the word of God and in the providen- 
tial demands of the hour, we would sweep a wider field 
of conquest for Jesus in the century to come. For 
such a re-enforcement we lift up hand and voice, and to 
the approaching column of laymen, loyal to the script- 
ural and Methodistic polities of the past, we shout 
" All hail ! " My recorded vote in favor of the change 
of the restrictive rule, indorsing the principle of a 
scriptural and Methodistic lay delegation, gave me, as 
I have said, "boundless pleasure;" but for such a com- 
ing as shall bar the Christian ministry in the fulfillment 
of their great commission I have no words of wel- 
come. For such tactics as shall give one division of 
Immanuel's army a " dead lock " upon another division 
while obeying the orders of the great Captain on the 



171 Principles of Church Government. 

field of battle, I never can say "Aye." Re-enforce- 
ments, not opponents, in the camp is the demand of the 
hour. God's providence, God's word, the clergy and 
people, have all called the laity to enter the councils of 
the Church, but not, thank God ! under the provisions 
of the plan proposed. A plan so odious, indeed, that 
it was only barely possible to carry the principle of lay 
delegation burdened with it by the trifling majority of 
forty- four ; and this only on reiterated assurances that 
"a plan for the introduction and duties [of laymen] 
must be enacted" by the General Conference before 
they could come in — a promise, at least by implication, 
of deliberation on the plan before its enactment ; so 
odious, that several Conferences, while voting for the 
principle of lay delegation, expressed, in resolutions, 
their utter disapprobation of " the plan ;" so odious, 
that the Michigan Conference repudiated the plan 
unanimously by report* — so that if in any sense the 
plan was ever submitted to Conference action it failed, 
through the action of the Michigan Conference alone, 
by just fifty ministerial votes, for its ninety-four 
" aye " votes for change of the restrictive rule must be 

* The Michigan Conference said: "1. The vote we cast is solely 
upon the change of the restrictive rule. 2. "We do not indorse the 
plan proposed by the General Conference for our consideration. 
3. While it is a matter of regret that the vote of the people is not 
larger, yet we regard the decisive majority of the votes cast in favor 
of lay delegation as indicative of an extensive desire on the part of 
the people for a system of lay delegation. 4. We declare ourselves 
nor, only not opposed to, but in favor of, a scheme of lay delegation 
which shall not interfere with the divinely designated authority of 
the Christian ministry." 



The Optional in Church Government. 175 

deducted from the column in favor of the plan ; so 
odious, that we call upon every lover of the Scripture, 
every admirer of Methodistic polity, every advocate of 
a genuine democracy, to unite with us in a vigorous 
and persistent crusade against its utterly unmethodistic 
and utterly undemocratic features. Let us, in God's 
name, save our true and loyal laity to the councils of 
the Church; but let us, in the name of all that is sacred, 
extirpate the plan / 

In its stead let us build up a great system which, 
while it shall conserve the fundamental principles of 
scriptural and Wesleyan Church polity, shall " option- 
ally " adjust its " particular form " to the democratic 
spirit of the age ; a system which shall so distribute 
the initiative functions of the legislative body on the 
division of labor principle as to secure the fullest bene- 
fits of the peculiar experience, education, and gifts of 
our distinguished laymen and clergy in their respective 
departments, where each shall be especially strongest 
in the service of the Church, and yet with such a con- 
currency of powers as shall constitute an impregnable 
rampart against the waves of popular excitement — a 
dike that shall say to the turbid sea of radicalism, 
" Hitherto thou shalt come, but no further." 

"Ezekiel's vision," we have been told, "was a vision 
of Methodism," and there are at least some striking 
analogies between them: "A fire infolding itself;" 
" And the living creatures ran and returned like light- 
ning;" "And when they went I heard the noise of 
their wings like the noise of great waters;" "And 
their appearance and work was as it were a wheel in 



176 Principles of Church Government. 

the middle of a wheel." Yes, here are wings of love 
and the wheels of organic power. But let us see what 
is necessary to complete the picture : " And above their 
heads was the likeness of a throne;" "And this was 
the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the 
Lord ; " " And the Spirit of the living creature was in 
the wheels;" "And the rings were full of eyes [the 
conservatism of truth, principle] round about;" "And 
whither the Spirit was to go they went, and turned not 
when they went; " "And they went every one of them 
STRAIGHT FORWARD." 



Governmental Maxims. 177 



CHAPTER XI. 

GOVERNMENTAL MAXIMS. 

GLEANED PROM DR. PEBRINE'S MEMORANDUM BOOKS AND MISCELLA- 
NEOUS WRITINGS. 

A constitution, says Judge Cooley, is sometimes 
denned as the fundamental law of a state; containing 
the principles upon which the government is founded, 
regulating the division of the sovereign powers, and 
directing to what persons each of these powers is to be 
confided and the manner in which it is to be exercised. 
It is that body of rules and maxims in accordance with 
which the powers of sovereignty are habitually ex- 
ercised. 

The constitution, according to Judge Cooley, is higher 
in authority than any law, direction, or decree made by 
any body or any officer assuming to act under it, since 
such body or officer must exercise a delegated author- 
ity, and that must necessarily be subservient to the in- 
strument by which the delegation is made. 

A constitution, says President Alden, of Jefferson 
College, is the fundamental law which determines the 
form of the government and defines its powers. The 
powers of the government are limited by the constitu- 
tion. The government can do only that which the con- 
stitution authorizes it to do. The legislature has no 

power to make a law contrary to the constitution. 
12 



178 Principles of Church Government. 

The following sentences are taken from President 
Alden's Science of Government : 

" Justice is the great end of government." 

" Men are born members of the State and subjects of 
the law." 

"Sir James Mcintosh's definition of liberty is ' se- 
curity against wrong.'" 

" No man can claim the right to do wrong. Liberty 
does not consist in the privilege of self-government, 
nor is it necessarily the result of the privilege of self- 
government." 

"Liberty is the result of wise and just laws faithfully 
executed." 

"It is the maxim of the British Constitution that the 
king never dies." 

"A republic is that form of government in which 
the supreme power is vested in the people, or represen- 
tatives elected by the people." 

" That man who says that representatives of the peo- 
ple are to do the will of their constituents neither un- 
derstands the science of the American government or 
any other. A Webster, a Marshall, a Madison, to throw 
away their own convictions and to follow the bidding 
of the crowd ! No ! ! " 

"The very design of many of the provisions of our 
government is to prevent the execution of the will of 
the people when hastily formed ; to give opjjortunity 
for that sober second thought which is more nearly 
allied to wisdom." 

" The true theory is this : The representative is a 
professional agent who is chosen to do certain things 



Governmental Maxims. 179 

according to his best ability, chosen on account of his 
ability. The people are under obligation to have good 
laws. Hence they are under obligation to use the best 
means adapted to that end. Hence they select good 
and wise men to make their laws. They select them 
that they may have the benefit of their superior wis- 
dom. Of course they most be allowed to exercise that 
wisdom unfettered by instructions. They should be 
restrained only by the constitution and the laws made 
in accordance with the constitution." 

" The duties of a legislator should be prescribed by 
the constitution, not by the leaders of a party, or by a 
majority under the control of such leaders." 

" The representative should conform to the wishes of 
his consistuency (only) so far as he can do so consistently 
with fidelity to their interests and those of the country. 
A desire to please them should not cause him to neg- 
lect the duties he was chosen to perform." — Pp. 23, 27, 
29-31. 

There is an immense difference between admiring 
liberty as a philosophical speculation — loving her like 
an imaginary beauty by sonnet and madrigal — and 
uniting with her in real wedlock for better or for 
worse. 

"If parliamentary practice is a guarantee of liberty 
by excluding in a high degree impassioned legislation 
and aiding in embodying in the law the collective mind 
of the legislature, the principle of two houses, or the 
bicameral system, as Mr. Bentham has called it, is 
another and no less efficient guarantee." * 
* Lieber, Civ. Lib., p. 193. 



180 Principles of Church Government. 

"When a bill is hastily brought in it generally 
requires mature deliberation and many amendments in 
its progress through the two houses, which always takes 
up a great deal of time, whereas when it is maturely 
considered and fully concerted before being brought in 
the first draft of the bill is generally so perfect that it 
requires but few amendments. And the rapidity of its 
progress always bears a proportion to the maturity of 
its first concoction." * 

The executive in all governments should have a neg- 
ative upon the legislative functions thereof. Black- 
stone says : " It is highly necessary for preserving 
the balance of the constitution that the executive 
power should be a branch, though not the whole of the 
legislature. The total union of them, as we have seen, 
would be productive of tyranny; the. total disjunction 
of them for the present would, in the end, produce the 
same effects by causing that union against which it 
seems to provide. The legislative would soon become 
tyrannical by making continual ecnroachments and 
gradually assuming to itself the rights of the executive 
power." 

The constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
evidently contemplates the integrity and perpetuity of 
the episcopal or executive power. f Then why not 
grant to a majority or to three fourths of our bishops 
present in the General Conference the negative that, 
in some form at least, is deemed essential to preserve 
the integrity and independence of every vigorous ex- 
ecutive in every free state in Christendom ? Why 
* Sir Charles Wagner. fSee restrictive rules. 



Governmental Maxims. 181 

should our bishops be compelled to listen to frequent 
reminders from the floor of the General Conference 
that " they are entirely at its mercy ? " We commend 
to the general good sense of the Church the following 
apothegm of "Junius," that champion of liberty: "The 
submission of a free people to the executive authority 
of government is no more than a compliance with laws 
which they themselves have enacted." * 

What are names by the side of principles ? " It is 
evidently on the real distribution of power," says 
Macaulay, " and not on names, that the happiness of 
nations must depend." f Legislative, judicial, and ex- 
ecutive power undistributed is popery, whether in the 
hands of one or many. The negative, as we have seen, 
is necessary to the real distribution of power — abso- 
lutely essential to the extirpation of popery. This 
bugaboo of Rome, no matter by whom shouted, is a 
poor compliment to the general intelligence of Methodism, 
and should be stunningly rebuked by the endoicment of 
the chief executive of the Church with every prerogative 
essential to the perfection of a free government. 

In the Methodist Episcopal Church "the power of 
the elders to govern is permanently transferred so as to 
be recalled only by a change in the constitution, and 
(that) it is distributed, as in the federal government, 
into three departments : the legislative, lodged solely 
in the General Conference ; the executive, assigned ex- 
clusively to the bishoj^s; and the judicial, diffused 
through various church courts." 

"I shall undertake to show," says Madison, "that 
* Letters, vol. i, p. 25. f Essays, p. 700. 



182 Principles of Church Government. 

unless these departments be so far connected and 
blended as to give to each a constitutional control over 
the others, the degree of separation which the maxim 
(of liberty) requires as essential to a free government 
can never in practice be duly maintained." 

We have been burning the candle of Methodism at 
both ends, the people arrogating to themselves the 
divine call and peculiar functions of the ministry, and 
the ministry encroaching in the General Conference 
upon the constitutional prerogatives of the bishops. 

The best things have been overthrown not so much 
by the puissance or might of adversaries as through the 
defect of council in them that should have upheld and 
defended the same.* 

Authority is sacred when experience affords parallels 
and analogies.f 

The highest earthly work the work of government.]; 

In his diary, July 4, 1844, Rufus Clmate indicates 
what he considers should be the characteristics of a 
legislative speech. These are " Truth for the staple, 
good taste for the form, persuasion to act for the end." 

The difference between political and constitutional 
responsibility is, the one is to the people and the other 
to the organic law. 

Error lurks under generalities. § 

To censure works, not men, is the just prerogative of 
criticism. || 

All human authority ceases at the point where obedi- 
ence to man becomes disobedience to God.^f 

* Hooker, Const. Lib., p. 480. \ Hooker. % Arnold. 

§ An ancient maxim. || Lord Kames. ^[ Dymond. 



Governmental Maxims. 183 

Society is the guardian, not the giver of its rights.* 

Every civil right has a natural right for its foun- 
dation, f 

Every man by understanding his rights learns his 
duties, for where the rights of man are equal every 
man must finally see the necessity of protecting the 
rights of others as the most effectual security of his 
own.J 

" Right by chance and wrong by system," are things 
so frequently seen in the political world that it becomes 
proof of prudence neither to censure nor applaud too 
soon. 

The fact that society is so constituted as to govern 
itself is in proof that government is of God.§ 

An hereditary transmission of any power or office 
can never accord with the laws of true representation.! 

Who make the ministry a caste ? " Those who say 
they cannot represent the people." 

" Up with the times " is the righteous imprint of 
optionalism; "As steady as eternity," the changeless 
principles that run through all times. 

If simpletons deride Church government as super- 
ficial and incidental, wise men will regard it as the or- 
ganic structure which gives law to the performance of 
every living function. 

There is a certain degree of giddiness bordering upon 
light-head edness that naturally attends upon the advo- 
cacy of democracy. 

Love, joy, peace, etc., the fruits of the Spirit, are in- 
deed the life of the Church, but life is always subject 

* Paine. f Ibid. \Ibid. %Ibid. \Ibid. 



184 Principles of Church Government. 

to law, spiritual; animal, vegetable, chemical, all subject 
to organic structural laws. 

Church polity is more than government. If it be 
held that Church government has reference simply to 
the protection of rights, let me say that Church polity 
means something more — a militant movement. 

Precedents are " cases that rest upon analogous facts " 
(and of course are illustrative of the same principle). 

Precedents are important, not as concluding contro- 
versy, but as guides to the judicial mind. 

Kent says, a A solemn decision upon a point of law 
arising in any given case becomes an authority in like 
cases." 

Dr. Lieber says, " Liberty and steady progression re- 
quire the principle of the precedent in all spheres." 

" If there is any thing certain in human affairs it is 
that acquisitions are only to be retained by the contin- 
uation of the same energies which gained them." * 

Between the extremes of absolutism and anarchy 
the ages have vacillated. Absolutism by its excesses 
has driven the world toward anarchy, and anarchy by 
its terrors back again toward absolutism. There is ice 
at either pole — danger at either extreme. A despot 
without control, a mob without control, are equally the 
foes of law, order, peace, and right. Power on the 
throne harnessed by the enlightened will of the people 
is the acme of governmental wisdom. 

There can be no effectual control vnthout some differ- 
ence of origin or character or interest or feeling or sen- 
timent. And the great question in this country has been 
* John Stuart Mill. 



Governmental Maxims. 185 

lohere to find or how to create this difference in govern- 
ments entirely elective and popular * 

This " great question," so embarrassing to the free 
State, finds most admirable answer in the free Church, 
not in the inventions of man, but in the ordinances of 
God. In the standing orders of the laity and ministry, 
each with its divinely enumerated powers and specific 
functions and determinate interests, in the one grand 
organism of the Church, the body of Christ, we have 
precisely the great desiderata, that exact balance of dif- 
fering powers, "interests, feelings, and sentiments," 
which is so essential to the absolute liberty, perfect se- 
curity, and mutual prosperity of each in the one great 
brotherhood of the Church. 

Not that the ministry is a " caste" any more than 
the incumbents of any constitutional office are a " caste." 
The authority of the ministry in the constitutional of- 
fice of the presbytery or eldership to which they are 
elected by the laity (" And they elected them elders in 
every church." Acts xiv, 23) is the authority of an 
elective office, not of a. priesthood. But just as in a 
republic, where every citizen is equal in the eyes of the 
law, particular men chosen by the suffrages of the 
many are charged with important functions in the or- 
ganic structure of the government, clothed, indeed, with 
the authority of a constitutional office, so, while all are 
equal in the sight of God as citizens of the kingdom 
of heaven, nevertheless in the visible organism of the 
Church, where " all members have not the same office " 
(Rom. xii, 4, 5), the elective constitutional offices of the 
* Webster's Works, vol. iii, pp. 9, 10. 



186 Principles op Church Government. 

pastorate (Acts xx, 28) and of the diaconate or stew- 
ardship (Acts vi, 2-7) have each an authority, in their 
respective spheres, of the spiritual and temporal affairs 
of the Church distinctively marked in the magna charta 
of ecclesiastical rights, and as consistent with the ab- 
solute freedom of every member of the Church as are 
the elective offices of senator and representative named 
in the Constitution with the liberties of every citizen of 
the Republic. The hoodlum or communistic demand 
that all organism in Church or State shall be ground to 
its component dust— to its ultimate atoms — is without 
brains, as it is without God. The hoodlum in Church 
or State is himself an organism, and logically annihi- 
lates himself in his insane " All-on-a-level" cry, " No 
officers ! " " No authority ! ! " 

The sainted and scholarly Nadal has very fitly said : 
" There are three forms of society divinely established, 
the State, the Church, and the family ; in other words, 
civil society, ecclesiastical society, and domestic society. 
Civil society has to do with man's external and purely 
mundane relations ; ecclesiastical society with his spir- 
itual and divine relations; and domestic society stands 
between the other two, closely related to each as a prep- 
aration for each, but possessing a distinct character of 
its own." 

And our dearly beloved and God-honored Bishop 
Simpson, in his great speech in Pittsburg (May 24, 
1869), spoke as follows: "Possibly it is said that the 
Church differs from other institutions in that it is di- 
vinely established. But, so far as the fact of their 
being, are not civil governments also of God ? * The 



Governmental Maxims. 187 

powers that be are ordained of God,' and yet the people 
have a right as to form and persons." 

We are very grateful to God for the utterance of 
these our leaders, for the recognition of this great 
fundamental truth : " God hath spoken once, yea, twice 
have I heard, that power belongeth unto God." " The 
powers that be are ordained of God." 

You may as well level all the members of the family 
to the plane of democracy as to break down all the spe- 
cial functions of the Church to the same plane. The 
family in form is of God, and the Church in its essen- 
tial organization is of God, as the ethical principles that 
underlie all government are of God. 

Certain of these ethical principles are generally ad- 
mitted: 1. That the family, the Church, and the State 
are of divine institution, and are to continue to the end 
of time. 2. That there are certain divinely ordained 
ethical principles that lie at the foundation of all gov- 
ernment, whether family, Church, or State. 3. That 
these ethical principles include the great truth that all 
just governments are instituted for the good of the 
governed, and that these governments derive their just 
powers from the authority and teachings of God. 
Alexander Pope says : " I hope all Churches and gov- 
ernments are so far of God as they are rightly under- 
stood and rightly administered, and when they err or 
may be wrong I leave it to God alone to mend or re- 
form them." 

" Every attentive reader of the New Testament must 
see that at least the outlines of Church government are 
there laid down, and the specific business of officers is 



188 Principles of Church Government. 

often left indefinite for the purpose of permitting the 
Churches, in their subsequent history, to arrange their 
government according to their circumstances." 

Mr. Wesley says:* "Many learned men have shown 
at large that our Lord himself, and all his apostles, 
"built the Christian Church, as nearly as possible, on the 
plan of the Jewish." 

"It is by the authority of the great Head of the 
Church that government and discipline are established 
in the Church." 

"Any government whose laws are enacted by the 
Lord, and whose officers are of his selection, is a the- 
ocracy. Such is the Church, and such it has been in 
every age." 

"The difference between the government of the 
Church and the government of the State may be speci- 
fied as follows : 

" 1. In the Jewish Church the two were united. 
Under the Gospel they are separated by the authority 
of our Lord. His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom. It 
is not of this world. The government of the State is 
secular. 

" 2. The government of the Church concerns itself 
only with those persons who belong to the Church. It 
has no authority over those who are of the world 
only. 

" 3. No requirement can be made of any member of 

the Church except what is expressly taught in the 

Bible, or what may be inferred from it. Civil 

government may make any requirement of individ- 

* Sermon on the ministerial office. 



Governmental Maxims. 189 

uals which may be deemed best for the good of the 
State. 

" 4. Church government is moral in its nature, and 
punishes only by admonition or excommunication ; 
while civil government punishes by pains and penalties 
of secular power. 

"5. Church government is advisory, soothing, and 
saving in its nature. The apostle says: 'Brethren, if 
a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, 
restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; 
considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.' 
Gal. vi, 1. The civil power usually visits the of- 
fender without any of these palliating and preventing 
steps. 

"6. Church government always forgives a penitent 
offender. Civil government makes no provision for for- 
giveness. See 2 Cor. ii, 6, 7." 

" I have," says De Tocqueville, " seen reason to change 
some of my views on social facts as well as some rea- 
sons founded on imperfect observations. But the foun- 
dation of my opinions can never undergo a change. 
Certain irrevocable maxims and propositions must con- 
stitute the basis of thinking minds." 

"The ideas on which the first religion was based 
must re-appear and stand prominently forth in the next 
and indeed in every dispensation." * 

" I would rather fall with Christ than to remain 
standing with Caesar." 

" The Gospel cometh not from man, but was brought 
by Jesus Christ, and afterward put into the hearts of 
* Fairbairn. 



190 Principles of Chuech Government. 

the apostles and their successors, that they might com- 
prehend it and speak or publish it." * 

" The kingdom is not governed by any force or power, 
but by preaching alone — that is, the Gospel." f 

"Hereby is the kingdom governed when he so reign- 
eth that all the power thereof consisteth in the word 
of God." J 

" He hath called and instructed certain persons to 
minister in our churches, and hath bestowed upon them 
various gifts proper for the discharge of their offices." § 

Dr. Elliott says: "Protestants and Roman Catholics 
are agreed that a class of men appointed in the Church 
to administer sacrament and to bear rule is of divine 
appointment, and necessary for the interests of re- 
ligion." " That appointment to the ministry was com- 
manded or instituted by Jesus Christ is acknowledged 
on both sides." "The apostles acknowledge only two 
ministerial offices — one of the word and another of 
tables — therefore there are only two orders of ministers, 
namely pastors and deacons." || 

The government of the Church is a theocracy in a 
far higher sense than can be predicated of any State 
government, though it should discover and apply every 
good ethical principle of law and order essential to its 
well-being. 

Church government as a theocracy involves not only 
the most distinct reiteration and perfectly just applica- 
tion of all "ethical principles of law and order," 
founded at creation in the general relation of things, 

* Luther. \ Ibid. % Ibid. %Ibid. 

|| Elliott on Romanism, pp. 448, 449, 476. 



Governmental Maxims. 191 

but the Divine presence and efficient sovereign headship 
of Christ in the Church, as has never been manifested 
in the State, by the "divine prescription" and "di- 
vine injunction" of specific agencies and positive laws 
for the sovereign control of all the interests of the 
kingdom of God. 

Nothing can be more unseemly than the position of 
an individual minority, unless it be the blunders of an 
overwhelming majority, the public being judges. 

For the Protestant "crime," the right of private 
judgment, a minority may be allowed to answer at the 
bar of its own conscience. The majority must respond 
at the court of history. The power that abandons dis- 
cretion in the moment of fancied victory by shutting 
off debate may have ample leisure for repentance. 

" Those who are conscious of a good cause and of the 
support of historical facts should never despair of 
making truth triumph int, even under circumstances the 
most adverse and apparently hopeless."* 

It is the duty of minorities to be " opinionated^ in 
the better sense of the term ; to have a definite and 
positive opinion in the case decided. If one had no 
such conviction as to the merits of the case in hand he 
had no right to attempt its decision by his vote — no 
right to be numbered either with the minority or ma- 
jority. Doubt as to the merits of any given measure 
must bar the vote on that measure. A "doubtful 
vote " is an act of unmanly folly, a fearful crime, and 
involves a responsibility no genuine man ever dare 
assume. To voluntarily cast this doubtful vote is a 
* Allison. 



192 Peinciples of Chuech Goveenment. 

positive falsehood; its compulsion by a "deliberative 
body " an act of tyranny. 

It is the further duty of minorities to continue to ad- 
vocate their opinions until convinced that they are erro- 
neous. Majorities in a democratic government are not 
finalities, and were never intended to decide a case of 
conscience. It is the glory of free institutions that they 
are based on free opinions, and that an untrammeled 
conscience may assert its integrity though against the 
world. The rule of majorities, implying the preponder- 
ance of free opinions on a given subject, should never 
stultify itself by an attempt to crush out the expression 
of free opinions in others who, in a free government, 
have simply compromised their peaceable submission to 
majority rule with the express understanding that they 
are free to manufacture a sentiment that in a free 
government at the end of a given period shall give 
them the rule in turn. 

The report of the minority is always in order. 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 193 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE CONSTITUTION TO BE GUARDED. 

(At the opening of the General Conference of 1876, 
in the city of Baltimore, Dr. W. II. Perrine moved the 
appointment of a special committee, to consist of two 
members from the territory of each Annual Conference, 
to take the initiative in the work of the thorough and 
permanent reorganization of the General Conference 
into two distinct, separate, and yet concurring houses, 
to be known respectively as the Clerical Senate and 
the House of Lay Representatives; the former to have 
the initiative in all measures relating to moral disci- 
pline; the latter in measures relating to the secularities 
of the Church. The motion was tabled, but permission 
was granted Dr. Perrine to publish his speech in 
support thereof in the Daily Advocate. He said :) 

In support of this motion, Mr. President, I beg leave 
to submit to the judgment of this most honorable body 
the following considerations : 

1. The division of this body into two distinct and 
separate houses is demanded for the more effectual pro- 
tection of our free constitution from the encroachments 
of the legislative body. 

That we may the better admeasure the merit of this 

argument, let us traverse the ground legitimately 

covered by it in four distinct yet consecutive steps : 
13 



194 Principles of Church Government. 

First, we wish to show exactly that in which the 
freedom of a constitution consists. 

Secondly, that ours is a free constitution. 

Thirdly, that our free constitution is in danger from 
the overreachings of the legislative arm; and 

Fourthly, that the expedient which the legislative 
science of the ages has provided for the protection of 
the free constitutions of the world against the aggress- 
ive ambition of the concentrated legislative power is 
the division of that mass into two distinct, separate, 
and restraining houses. 

It is said, Mr. President, that in ascertaining certain 
dimensions a yard-stick has been known to do valuable 
service; that its fair application will settle most dis- 
putes as to lengths or breadths, heights or depths ; that 
it is equally authorative whether applied to ribbons, 
to broadcloth, to corduroy, to cord wood, to the altitude 
of a man, or the girth of the globe. We congratulate 
the world of extension on the happy possession of a 
standard so well accredited, so universally authoritive. 

Have we in the political or ecclesiastical worlds 
any thing analogous to this? A governmental " yard- 
stick" so well accredited, so universally authoritative 
that its fair application shall be the end of all contro- 
versies as to the freedom or despotism of all constitu- 
tions, whether of Church or State ? A " yard-stick " 
that shall admeasure with equal facility, impartiality, 
and exactness the merits of all expositions of our con- 
stitution in this regard, whether made by Church his- 
torian, General Conference orator, or official editor, no 
matter how erudite, eloquent, or " well stuck to ? " 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 195 

We are happy at least in thinking we have a " yard- 
stick " as old as political science itself, and as authorita- 
tive as the consensus of all the great names in its his- 
tory. It is the celebrated apothegm of Montesquieu, 
and reads thus: " There can be no liberty where the 
legislative, executive, and judicial powers are united in 
the same monarch or senate." 

Thomas Jefferson thus indorses it: " The concen- 
trating of all the legislative, executive, and judiciary 
powers in the same hands answers precisely the defi- 
nition of despotic government. It will be no allevia- 
tion that these powers will be exercised by a plurality 
of hands and not by a single one. One hundred and 
seventy-three despots would be as oppressive as one. 
As little will it avail that they are chosen by ourselves. 
An elective despotism was not the government we 
fought for, but one which should not only be founded 
on free principles, but in which the powers of govern- 
ment should be so divided and balanced among several 
bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend 
their legal limits without being effectually checked and 
restrained by the others." * 

Chief Justice Story puts his great name upon our 
yard-stick thus: 

" Whenever the executive, legislative, and judiciary 
are all vested in one person or body of men, the gov- 
ernment is in fact a despotism, by whatever name it 
may be called, whether a monarchy, an aristocracy, or 
a democracy." f " Nothing is more deceptive or more 
dangerous," says Webster, the great expounder of con- 

* Jeffersons "Works, vol. viii, p. 361. \ Const, p. 4*7. 



196 Principles of Church Government. 

stitutional liberty, " than the pretense of a desire to 
simplify government. If we will abolish the distinc- 
tion of branches and have but one branch; if we will 
abolish jury trials and leave all to the judge; if we 
will then ordain that the legislator shall himself be that 
judge; and if we place the executive power also in the 
same hands, we may readily simplify government — we 
may bring it to the simplest of all forms, a pure 
despotism." * 

Alexander Hamilton, who, as the distinguished Guizot 
affirms, " must be classed among the men who have best 
understood the vital principles and fundamental con- 
ditions of government," emphatically pronounces the 
apothegm which requires the distribution of the legis- 
lative, executive, and judiciary functions " the most ap- 
proved and well-founded maxim of free government." 

James Madison, one of the clearest of all our political 
writers, says: "The accumulation of all powers, legis- 
lative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, 
whether one, few, or many, and whether hereditary, 
self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the 
very definition of tyranny;" and of our "yard-stick" 
he says: "No political truth is certaiuly of greater 
intrinsic value or stamped with the authority of more 
enlightened patrons of liberty." f 

We will add the weight of but one other equally 
great name. Stahl, in his justly celebrated work, enti- 
tled the Philosophie cles RecJits, says: "Through Locke 
and Montesquieu the great truth has been won, and it 
constitutes their undying renown, that the participa- 
* Works, vol. iv, p. 122. t Fed., p. 272. 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 197 

tion of the different elements in the exercise of the 
power of the state, and that, too, in their threefold 
function, is the foundation of civil and political free- 
dom." And so, on the other hand, that " when one and 
the same power, whether a prince or a popular assem- 
bly, alone exercises all functions despotism is the inevi- 
table result." * 

The authority of our political yard-stick could not 
be more absolutely unimpeachable, nor could its appli- 
cation be more easy and decisive, provided we but at- 
tend with due caution to the exact demarkation of the 
rule as laid down in the works of its great expositors. 
We regret, however, that it has sometimes been misap- 
plied. Mr. Bagehot, in his recent work on the English 
Constitution, could not have spoken more completely 
without the record than when he says, " No doubt, by 
the traditional theory, as it exists in all the books, 
the goodness of our constitution consists in the 
entire separation of the legislative and executive au- 
thorities." f 

For this " traditional theory as it exists in all the 
books " is most explicit and emphatic in warning 
against this " entire separation of legislative, executive, 
and judiciary powers," as one of the dangerous ex- 
tremes to be forever avoided. " The entire division of 
powers," says Bluntschli, " would involve the dissolu- 
tion of the state and the dismemberment of the polit- 
ical body." X 

Stahl says : " The complete isolation of the executive 

* Vol. ii, sec. 2, p. 203. •)• P. 76. 

\ Allgemeines Statsrechts, vol. i, p. 450. 



198 Principles of Church Government. 

strips it of every thing and makes it the tool of the 
legislative body." * 

"The error involved in the maxim of a division of 
powers," says Von Mohl, "is almost universally 
recognized in the science of politics. Instead of the 
common endeavor toward the common good it would 
result in conflict, in the antagonisms of divided pow- 
ers, and instead of stable freedom it would lead to 
anarchy." f 

"The error which would isolate them," says Meul- 
ford, "is as destructive of unity as the error which 
would identify them is destructive of freedom." J 

" The total union of them," says Blackstone, " would 
be productive of tyranny ; their total disjunction for 
the present would in the end produce that (total) union 
against which it seems to provide ; the legislative would 
become tyrannical by making continual encroachments 
and gradually assuming to itself the rights of the ex- 
ecutive." § 

'1 shall undertake to show," says Madison, "that 
unless these departments be so far connected and 
blended as to give to each a constitutional control over 
the others, the degree of separation which the apo- 
thegm requires as essential to a free government can 
never in practice be duly maintained." || 

"To what expedient, then," asks Hamilton, "shall we 
finally resort for maintaining in practice the necessary 
partition of power ? The only answer that can be given 
is that as all exterior provisions are found to be inade- 

* Nation, p. 192. f Eacyklopadie der Staats Wissenchaften, p. 112. 
% Nation, p. 111. § Comment, vol. i., p. 153. || Fed., p. 382. 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 199 

quate, the defect must be supplied by so contriving 
the exterior structure of the government as that its 
several constituent parts may, by their mutual rela- 
tions, be the means of keeping each other in their 
proper places." * 

Among the almost endlessly varied expedients, hy- 
phens, or connecting links, by which co-ordinate depart- 
ments are inter-related or braided together in subordi- 
nation to constitutional unity, may be mentioned the 
following : 

1. Constitutional Checks ; such as the conditional 
negative upon the legislative by the executive, and 
the decree of unconstitutionality of legislative acts in 
particular cases by the judiciary. 

2. A second class of connecting links are : Constitu- 
tional Re-enforcements; such as the executive may 
give the constabulary of the courts, by calling out the 
militia, and the legislative to the executive in the ex- 
ecutive sessions of the senate. 

3. A third class of connecting bonds between these 
departments might be labeled, Constitutional Depen- 
dencies ; such as is seen in the dependence "for the 
most part of our national judiciary upon the authoriz- 
ing acts of Congress, creating courts and conferring 
jurisdiction;"! and in the election of the judges of the 
supreme court by the senate upon the nomination by 
the executive. 

4. A fourth and last class might be labeled, Consti- 
tutional Responsibilities : amenability of all public 
officers to the political or civil tribunals under the 

*Fed., p. 397. f Cooley's Const. Mm., p. 191. 



200 Principles of Church Government. 

Constitution according to the nature of their crimes 
or misdemeanors; for all authorities concur with Kent 
that the "inviolability of any officer is incompatible 
with the Republican theory." * 

"In the United States," says De Tocqueville, "all 
public offices are responsible to the tribunals." f 

" Responsibility," says Patrick Henry, " is the great 
pillar of free government." J 

In summing up the opinions of those who framed the 
Federal Constitution, Elliott says : " An independence 
of the three great departments of each other, as far as 
possible, and the responsibility of all to the will of the 
community, seemed to be generally admitted as the 
true basis of a well-constructed government." § 

That is it, Mr. President — the correlation of inter- 
dependent and perfectly co-ordinate departments or 
offices of the government with the absolute subordina- 
tion or responsibility of all incumbent officers for the 
due performance of their constitutional functions. We 
repeat it, the perfect co-ordination of office and the 
absolute subordination of the officer are both equally 
essential to the unity and vigor of free government. 
That and that alone is the doctrine of the apothegm, 
and that is the standard " stamped with the authority 
of the most enlightened patrons of liberty." This 
standard we would now fling up beside the stately pro- 
portions of our ecclesiastical constitution, and we do it 
with confidence, with pride, with gratitude to God for 
the wisdom of the fathers in old Baltimore in 1 808. 

* Comment., vol. i, p. 302. f Vol. i, p. 130. 

\ Virginia, Elliott's Debates, p. 390. § Elliott's Debates, vol. v, p. 327. 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 201 

Was there ever, in the history of political or ecclesi- 
astical discussions, an absurdity equal to that advocated 
by the South in 1844, that "because the episcopacy 
(episcopal office) was a co-ordinate branch of Church 
government, therefore he (the bishop, episcopal officer) 
was not subordinate ? Therefore he became absolute, 
and beyond the reach of reproof, censure, instruction, 
suspension, or deposition." * 

Yes, there was one other, the exact counterpart of 
the Southern folly ; the equally amazing absurdity ad- 
vocated by the orators and editors of the Church North 
from that day to this, that because the bishop or epis- 
copal officer was subordinate, amenable, to the General 
Conference, therefore the episcopacy or episcopal office 
is not a co-ordinate branch of our Church government! ! 
Could there be any thing more amazing? And yet 
these two hemispheres of absurdity together make a 
perfect world of nonsense, the most stupendous puff-ball 
in all political or ecclesiastical history. And yet, sir, so 
vigorously has that puff-ball been kicked from North to 
South and from South to North by the official acrobats 
of both sections that the cloud of descending dust fill- 
ing every publisher's sanctum has obscured many an 
editorial line and thought, and well-nigh put out the 
eyes of Method istical Church polity. 

" Will any sensible man," asks Richard Henry Lee, 
of the convention that framed our national Constitu- 
tion — " will any sensible man say that great power with- 
out responsibility can be given to rulers with safety to 
liberty ? " f 

* Great Secession, p. 426. f Elliott's Debates, vol. i, p. 505. 



202 Principles of Church Government. 

Is there a sensible member of this body so insensible 
to the excellencies of the structure of the national gov- 
ernment that shelters him as to say that perfect co- 
ordination in office is incompatible in any degree with 
the subordination of the officer in every degree ? Is 
any man so brave as to affirm it ? Is not the perfect 
subordination of the officer essential to absolute co- 
ordination in office to any practical degree, and both to 
that real distinction of power demanded by the repub- 
lican theory of free government? Dare any man 
deny? 

That every episcopal officer is amenable under the 
constitution to the General Conference no one in this 
assembly will question. That he is not only subject 
at all times to impeachment for immoral conduct be- 
fore the appropriate judiciary tribunals of the Church, 
but answerable directly for maladministration to this 
body, which may during its session admonish, reprove, 
suspend, or remove him from office, no one can ques- 
tion. 

But as to the co-ordination of the episcopal office 
with that of the legislative — we blush to say it — that 
has been questioned. And that question gives weight, 
superlative dignity, and overwhelming importance, a 
solemn emphasis, sir, to our second question : Js ours a 
free government, a free constitution? 

If, on the one hand, we shall find all legislative, ex- 
ecutive, and judiciary power given by that constitution 
into the hands of our episcopacy, in the presence of our 
standard, " stamped with the authority of the most en- 
lightened patrons of liberty," ours is a despotic govern- 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 203 

ment. That would be popery. Again, if, on the other 
hand, that Constitution lodges supreme legislative, ju- 
dicial, and executive powers in the popular assembly, 
the General Conference, we shall find our government 
again answering " the very definition of tyranny," " in 
fact, a despotism." 

If, however, we shall find the executive, legislative, 
and judicial powers standing in the same relation of 
dependence upon the constitution that is above them, 
each equally sheltered by it from the encroachments of 
every other, and all standing in the same relations of 
authority in their respective provinces to all below 
them, then we have not only a perfect co-ordination 
of powers according to all lexicographers, but, with 
the subordination of all officers, that exact distribution 
of powers or offices which constitutes our free govern- 
ment. 

I hold in my hand, sir, the constitution of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, enacted in the old Light Street 
church of this city in 1808. I turn first to that au- 
thorizing clause of the constitution which confers legis- 
lative powers upon the General Conference: "The 
General Conference shall have full powers to make 
rules and regulations for our Church, under the follow- 
ing limitations and restrictions." 

That, Mr. President, is the institution of the legisla- 
tive department, standing, of course, in the relation of 
dependence upon the constitution, from which it re- 
ceives the definition, the authoritative limitation, of its 
powers. What could Bishop Hamlinehave meant when 
he affirmed of this body, " It has legislative supremacy ? " 



204 Principles of Church Government. 

We stand second to no man in our admiration for the 
gifts of Bishop Hamline as an orator. And it will be 
thought no presumption in me to say with reference to 
his famous speech that, though it were the most match- 
less forensic effort ever made, though its granite-like 
foundations were laid upon an underpinning of the 
most diamond-like rhetoric that ever dazzled the eyes 
of a deliberative body, and though the ease with which 
he upreared that amazing superstructure of General 
Conference power seemed perfectly magician-like, 
Bishop Hamline at least was able to answer himself. 
When pushed by Dr. Smith upon some of the points of 
that speech, " Mr. Hamline rose to explain, and under 
the head of fifthly said: 'This body is responsible to 
the constitution.'" What! "Supreme," and yet re- 
sponsible? He himself, sir, despite the fictitious 
theory set up in his oracular speech, was obliged to 
acknowledge that the legislative department of the 
Church stands in a responsible position, dependent on 
the constitution for the definition and guaranteement 
of its powers. 

We glance next at those portions of the constitution 
which relate to the executive department. 

In the wise inter-relations of the departments of 
power established by the constitution we notice here, 
first, that "one of the general superintendents shall 
preside in the General Conference." Again, we find on 
this same page of the Discipline " the whole machinery 
of executive administration, every wheel and spring," 
sheltered effectually by the constitution from the legis- 
lative arm: "They [the General Conference] shall not 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 205 

change or alier any part or rule of our government so 
as to do away episcopacy or destroy the plan of our 
itinerant general superintendency." 

Now, we must suppose that the founders of the con- 
stitution used the terms " episcopacy " and " plan of 
itinerant general superintendency " in a definite and 
positive sense, a sense which we, as interpreters of the 
constitution, are bound to seek and ascertain; a sense, 
very fortunately, we need not go very far to find; for 
these terms are most specifically defined for us in those 
very " parts and rules of our Church government " 
which the founders of the constitution have so wisely 
sheltered from the encroachments of the legislative 
body, that it can never " do away episcopacy or destroy 
the plan of our itinerant general superintendency." 

Referring only incidentally to " that part or rule of 
our Church government" relating to "the form of or- 
daining a bishop," where we have a most impressive 
exhibit of the high importance attached to these officers 
by the founders of the constitution "for the well gov- 
erning of the Church," let us turn at once to that oilier 
" part or rule of our Church government," in which 
the inalienable powers of the episcopal office are cate- 
gorically enumerated, and the responsibility of the in- 
cumbent officer most unequivocally enjoined. We refer 
to the section on "the election and consecration of 
bishops, and their duty." The powers of the episcopal 
office are here enumerated under the head of "duties of 
a bishop," and are as follows : 

1. To preside in our conferences. 

2. To fix the appointments of the preachers. 



206 Principles of Church Government. 

3. In the intervals of the conferences to change, re- 
ceive, and suspend preachers. 

4. To travel through the connection at large. 

5. To oversee the spiritual and temporal business of 
our Church. 

6. To ordain bishops, elders, and deacons. 

All of the above powers were implied in the terms 
"episcopacy and plan of our itinerant general superin- 
tendency," as understood by the founders of the consti- 
tution at the time, and hence, according to the most 
authoritative of all the canons of criticism, binding upon 
all expounders of the constitution for all time. 

Now, sir, if we should apply with anything like legal 
acumen a well-established legal principle, namely, that 
the prohibition of the greatest offense in any certain 
class of offenses must exclude all the minor offenses 
of that class, then the prohibition of the constitution 
which forbids to " do away episcopacy," must forbid 
the slightest encroachment upon any one of the consti- 
tutional prerogatives of that " episcopacy " as it existed 
in 1808, for in just so far as any one of these preroga- 
tives is lessened, weakened, or maimed in the least, just 
so far is episcopacy "done away," and just so far the 
constitution suffers violence. 

In the fortification of our position in favor of the 
co-ordination of our episcopacy with the legislative de- 
partment in the government of the Church, we shall 
here cite but two authorities, either one of whom will 
pass current with this body. Dr. Charles Elliott, our 
official historian, employed and paid by the General 
Conference of 1848, as "a competent person to write 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 207 

the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church for the 
last four years," shall speak for us : 

"The office of bishop and the plan of general superin- 
tendency are fundamental ecclesiastical principles of 
Episcopal Methodism which the General Conference 
cannot do away or infringe upon. But this body, ac- 
cording to the Discipline, has complete authority to 
approve, censure, suspend, depose, or expel any bishop 
(that is, episcopal officer), and this power has always 
been recognized and exercised, as far as there was room 
for it, since the organization of the first delegated Gen- 
eral Conference, in 1808."* 

Our other authority that we propose to quote we 
think will go unimpeached, at least wherever "the 
sage and leader of the old Baltimore Conference " is 
known, the venerable Alfred Griffith, whom Stevens 
so justly pronounces "profound and statesman-like in 
council," " a venerable counselor of the General Con- 
ference." f 

" Methodist Episcopacy is the episcopacy which the 
General Conference cannot do away. It is a superior 
office which the Conference of 1784 adopted as a dis- 
tinct authority and power, and incorporated it as a pri- 
mary element of the organic law for the government of 
the Church, and the General Conference is bound to fill 
the office, from time to time, with suitable men, so as 
to maintain it." " Thus the office is distinguished from 
the incumbents who fill it." \ To Dr. Hamline we sim- 

* History of the Great Secession, p. 429. 

f History of the M. E. Church, pp. 215, 231. 

\ History of the Great Secession, p. 463. 



208 Principles of Church Government. 

ply say, in 1808 the constitution did not "create," but 
simply and effectually sheltered the executive depart- 
ment of Church administration, which had been in ex- 
istence since 1784. 

By turning to the fifth restrictive rule we shall find 
the prerogatives of what we may call our ecclesiastical 
judiciary equally sheltered by the constitution from 
the talons of the General Conference, for it is there 
written, " They [the General Conference] shall not do 
away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of 
trial by a committee, and of an appeal; neither shall 
they do away the privileges of our members of trial 
before the society, or by a committee, and of an ap- 
peal." 

If, as some one has said, " the main result of three 
hundred years of Anglo-Saxon agitation, revolution, 
and bloodshed was to put twelve honest, intelligent 
men in a jury box," we may commend the provident 
wisdom of the fathers in thus throwing over these most 
precious of all ecclesiastical rites the broad and shelter- 
ing; geofis of the constitution. We cannot dwell here — 
as we would like. Suffice it to say of these three great 
powers of Church government that, as all alike are 
standing in the same relation of dependence upon the 
constitution above them, and all alike standing with 
constitutional authority in the same relation to all that 
is below them, we must pronounce them co-ordinate 
under the constitution. And braided together as they 
are by the most admirable expedients of inter-relations 
and dependencies in the unity of the constitution, and 
without the possibility of a deadlock of co-ordinate 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 209 

powers, as in the United States government, on the one 
hand, or the tenure of the executive administration 
being dependent on the roll of a popular wave, as in 
Parliament, on the other, we have, we believe it, with a 
few exceptions to be noticed hereafter, the most admi- 
rable system of distributed power yet devised by man 
— the freest, the most stable, and yet the most vigorous 
Church government on earth. 

But this free constitution is in danger. Do any 
doubt that it has been imperiled ? Proof is too con- 
clusive. Who gave the most popular speech ever de- 
livered on the floor of this legislature ? Leonidas L. 
Hamline. What was the burden of that marvelous 
speech ? The supremacy of the General Conference ! 
We quote verbatim: "Its supremacy is universal ! ! Tt 
has legislative, judicial, and executive supremacy ! ! ! " 
What followed ? Was this body shocked at the utter- 
ance of this great libel on the character of our free 
constitution, at the application of the formula which 
" answers to the very definition of a despotic govern- 
ment," * " precisely the definition of tyranny," f which 
would make us " in fact a despotism." J The record 
tells us " that at its conclusion nearly every body was 
ready to shout." Aye, sir, that formula fell on " eager 
ears." It touched responsive chords in human nature. 
In short, it was in perfect consonance with what Chief- 
Justice Story calls so justly " the strong propensity of 
all public bodies to accumulate all power, patronage, 
and influence in its own hands." Sir, with the General 
Conference it was a very popular speech. Who won- 

* Jefferson. f Madison, \ Story. 

14 



210 Principles of Church Government. 

ders that they were " ready to shout" — were ready to 
smile on the author and utterer of so many most agree- 
able sentiments, so many exquisite and most acceptable 
compliments — were ready to do a handsome thing in 
return ? The orator gave the Conference all he would 
— legislative, judicial, and executive supremacy," "uni- 
versal supremacy ! !" and the General Conference gave 
the orator all they could ! Their suffrage made him a 
bishop. And what wonder, sir, that while the exhila- 
rating effect of that intoxicating draught of " universal 
supremacy " was still tingling the blood, vibrating along 
all the nerves, bracing the will with a feeling of puis- 
sance akin to conscious omnipotence, this body, within 
twenty-four hours after it had shaken out its honors on 
the head of the very complimentary orator, proceeded 
to such a stretch of General Conference prerogatives in 
the enactment of the so-called " plan of separation " as 
has covered not only its enactors, the General Confer- 
ence of 1844, but the entire Church, with confusion, 
humiliation, and shame. Alfred Griffith and a few 
others lifted up the voice of warning, but under the 
whip of the previous question this well-nigh omnipotent 
body drove on. It was the work of a few hours, but 
it has given us abundant leisure for repentance, and the 
end is not yet. We would, sir, infinitely prefer to go 
backward and throw the veil of oblivion over that sad- 
dest of all the chapters of our legislative history, but 
fidelity to the interests of the Church yet imperiled by 
this " universal supremacy " dogma impels us to speak. 
The keen-eyed South saw its advantage. With that 
so-called " plan of separation " as a deep-laid keel, they 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 211 

proceeded to key and bolt in the mighty ribs of " leg- 
islative, judicial, and executive supremacy," and, roofed 
with the identical " universal supremacy " rails of " tlie 
great speech," and beaked with the "General Conference 
supremacy " decisions of Judge Nelson in the United 
States Court, they sent their Confederate ram with fly- 
ing colors crashing through the broadsides of our con- 
stitution, severing not only " a few slender restric- 
tions," but cleaving the Church in twain, and carrying 
away with this General Conference supremacy craft the 
accumulated spoils of our Book Concern. 

Why, sir, to change the figure slightly, General 
Hamline's universal supremacy guns were no sooner cast 
and wheeled into position than the South, charmed with 
the music, charged, seized, turned, and opened upon us 
" universal supremacy" thunder with a promptness, pre- 
cision, and persistency that have not been at all amus- 
ing. Do any doubt the accuracy of our statements ? 
In speaking of the Louisville Convention, at which the 
Southern Church was organized, Dr. Elliott says : 

" The report on organization speaks as though the 
General Conference gave absolute power to the South- 
ern conferences to separate." — P. 480. 

And again : " The convention itself says : * We do 
nothing but what we are expressly authorized to do by 
the supreme, or rather the highest, legislature of the 
Church — the General Conference.' "—P. 769. 

Again, Dr. Elliott says: "The ground taken in the 
appeal of the Southern commissioners in the bill of the 
plaintiffs, and by the Southern press in general, was that 
the General Conference had full power to distribute 



212 Principles of Church Government. 

the funds without the constitutional vote of the Annual 
Conferences ! "—P. 77G. 

On page 753 he quotes from Judge Nelson's decision 
the following amazing statement: " As it respects the 
action of this body (the General Conference of 1844) in 
the matter of division, no one can pretend but that it 
proceeds upon the assumption of unquestioned power 
to erect the Church into separate ecclesiastical estab- 
lishments ! Independently of this question of property 
the power of severance is written on every page of its 
proceedings ! " And again, from the same Supreme 
Court decision, on page 768: "As it respects the power 
of the General Conference since the modifications of 
1808, it is the same as previously existed ! The powers 
conferred on the General Conference are broad and un- 
limited . . . the same as before ! ! " Preposterous as 
these " universal supremacy " expositions of the con- 
stitutional powers of this body may appear, sir, when 
inscribed on the banners of the craft that cleft our 
territory and Book Concern in twain, we cannot shut 
our eyes to the danger with which it still threatens us. 
The superlative absurdity of the doctrine was no bar 
to its adoption by the South, nor will it be, if we are to 
judge the future by the past, at the North. Look, sir, 
at the following vouchers: Dr. Crooks, of The Method- 
ist, in his second letter reviewing Dr. Porter's pamphlet 
against lay delegation, in serious and most vehement 
argument, said : " This view of the powers of the Gen- 
eral Conference, so ably presented by Bishop Hamline, 
and so eagerly accepted by the body to which it was 
addressed, has been fully confirmed by the Supreme 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 213 

Court of the United States, . . . Judge Nelson holding 
* that the General Conference is supreme in the fullest 
sense of the terra, without the concurrence of the sev- 
eral Conferences ! ! ! " " Thus the case stands." He 
repeats : " The General Conference can do pretty much 
as it pleases ! It made the Church; it can unmake it 
again ! It can hold the Church together ; it can divide 
it into two, three, or four ecclesiastical bodies. It is a 
supreme legislature, a supreme executive, a supreme 
court ! . . . The General Conference is not such a body- 
as you have asserted. Its powers are not limited, but 
plenary, and it may distribute those powers according 
to its pleasure ! ! " 

That, sir, was one of the arches of " the bridge of fog " 
over which the whole phantom argument filed without 
a single protest. 

Again, Dr. Crooks has quoted much more recently 
the whole of Bishop Hamline's " universal supremacy 
speech," not this time for the purpose of proving that 
the General Conference had power to distribute the ag- 
gregate members and powers of the Church into their 
primary, original, or ultimate atoms, but " the absolute 
supremacy of the General Conference over the episco- 
pacy," and that as to our bishops, " their power, their 
usefulness, themsehes are entirely at the mercy of the 
(delegated) General Conference '! ! " * 

And in the January number for 1876, after making 

a quotation with reference to the power of the whole 

body of preachers, Dr. Crooks says: "The function 

which most distinguishes our episcopacy (the appoint- 

* Methodist, Dec. 26, 18U. 



214 Principles of Church Government. 

ing power) is, therefore, terminable in part or wholly at 
the pleasure of the General Conference ! " 

Dr. Curry also quotes the " universal supremacy " 
speech of .Bishop Hamline with entire approbation, and 
says : " The General Conference as it meets quadren- 
nially by delegates is forbidden to 'do away episcopacy,' 
but it may modify it at pleasure, except that it must 
continue to be ' itinerant general,' or, as Bishop Hamline 
puts it, the incumbents of the office may be reduced to 
a single individual, and the duties assigned may be 
reduced to that of traveling through the work without 
the power to do any thing more ! " * A perfect defini- 
tion of an episcopal tramp! Admirable! You must "not 
do away " with " the big iron wheel," but the number of 
cogs and spokes "may be reduced to a single individ- 
ual " cog and spoke, and the duties assigned to this, 
with its individual spoke and cog, may be reduced to 
g. 'ing round and round through the work ".without the 
power to do any thing more /" 

The language of the Worth-western is, if possible, still 
more remarkable. Its editor says: " The episcopacy is 
indeed a creature of and subordinate to the General 
Conference, but, in the intervals between the General 
Conference sessions, the episcopacy is, so far as its ex- 
ecutive duties derived from that Conference (!) are 
concerned, the General Conference itself ! ! " f 

The " executive duties " taken out of the " episco- 
pacy," what have you left ? A shell ! The editor of 
the North-western proposes to fill that shell with the 
* New York Christian Advocate, February 11, 1875. 
f North-western, January, 1875. 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 215 

General Conference ! ! We need not multiply quo- 
tations. Their name is legion. 

Now, Mr. President, the danger that must arise from 
this general and persistent denial of that distribution 
of power which is essential to liberty can but be 
evident to every enlightened lover of Constitutional 
Methodism. To what are we to look for refuge ? To 
our official organs ? Alas, sir, as we have seen, they 
are the advocates of this very absolutism of the General 
Conference! And no matter who shall be elected 
hereafter, they will be under the strongest possible 
temptations to flatter the king from whom they receive 
their patronage and their power, for " their country is 
nourished by the king's country." Shall we look to the 
episcopacy for the protection of the constitution ? 
Alas! they are indeed in this body that claims the con- 
stitutional right to divest them of every vestige of 
power but "a gallery of disabilities, where, as specta- 
tors of a tragedy, they can do little more than admire 
or reprobate the piece, and smile or frown upon the 
actors," with not even the power of the conditional 
veto with which political science has invested else- 
where nearly every free executive on earth! Will 
the letter of the constitution be a sufficient bulwark for 
the protection of its spirit against the assaults of the 
legislature ? Gouverneur Morris, whose gifted pen 
gave final form and symmetry to the Constitution of the 
United States, did not think so. In a letter to Timothy 
Pickering soon after the Constitution was finished he 
exclaims : " But, after all, what does it signify that 
men should have a written constitution, containing 



210 Principles of Church Government. 

unequivocal provisions and limitations ? The legisla- 
tive lion will not be entangled in the meshes of a 
logical net. The Legislature will always make the 
power which it wishes to exercise, unless it be so organ- 
ized as to contain within itself the sufficient check. 
Attempts to restrain it from outrage by other means 
will only render it more outrageous." * 

Hamilton, who, it is said, "most powerfully con- 
tributed to introduce into the Constitution of the 
United States every element of order, of force, and 
duration in it," says: "In a republican government the 
legislative authority necessarily predominates. The 
remedy for this inconvenience is to divide the legisla- 
ture into different branches and to render them, by 
modes of election and different principles of action, as 
little connected with each other as the nature of their 
common function and their common dependence on 
society will admit." f 

De Lolme, one of the very first constitutional writers 
of modern times, says: "In order to insure stability to 
the constitution of the state, it is indispensably neces- 
sary to restrain the legislative authority; and the legis- 
lature, to be restrained, must be absolutely divided, 
for whatever laws it may make to restrain itself, they 
can never be relatively to it any thing more than sim- 
ply resolutions. As those bars which it might erect to 
stop its own motions must then be within it and rest 
only upon it, they can be no bars. But each of the 
parts into which the legislature is divided can serve as 
bars to the motions of the others. ... As a kind of point 
* Elliott's Debates., vol. i, p. 509. f Fed., p. 390. 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 217 

of honor will naturally take place between those differ- 
ent parts of the legislature, they will therefore be left 
to offer to each other only such propositions as will at 
least be plausible, and all very prejudicial changes will 
thus be prevented, as it were, before their birth." * 

Chief-Justice Story, among the enumerated advan- 
tages of the division of the legislature into two dis- 
tinct and independent branches, states that " it inter- 
poses a barrier against the strong propensity of all 
public bodies to accumulate all power, patronage, and 
influence in their own hands." f 

In the great work of Curtis, entitled The History of 
the Constitution of the United States, quoted with defer- 
ence as an authority at home and abroad, we find the 
following: 

" The needful harmony and completeness of the 
scheme, according to the genius of Anglo-American 
liberty, required the division of the Legislature. Doubt- 
less a single council or chamber can promulgate de- 
crees and enact laws; but it had never been the habit of 
the people of America, as it had never been the habit of 
their ancestors for at least a period of somewhat more 
than five centuries, to regard a single chamber as favor- 
able to liberty or to wise legislation. 

" The separation into two chambers of Lords, spirit- 
ual and temporal, and the Commons, does not seem to 
have oiiginated in a difference of personal rank so 
much as in their position as separate estates of the 
realm. All the orders might have voted promiscuously 
in one house, and just as effectually signified the assent 
* Const. Eng., p. 231. f Story on Const., p. 50. 



218 Principles of Church Government. 

or dissent of Parliament to measures proposed. But 
the practice of making the assent of Parliament to 
consist in the concurrent and separate action of the two 
estates, though difficult to be traced to its origin in any 
distinct purpose or cause, became confirmed by the 
growing importance of the Commons, by their jealousy 
and vigilance, and by controlling positions which they 
finally assumed. As Parliament gradually proceeded 
to its present constitution, and the separate rights and 
privileges of the two Houses became established, it 
was found that the practice of discussing a measure 
in two assemblies composed of different persons hold- 
ing their seats by different tenure and representing dif- 
ferent orders of the state, was in the highest degree 
conducive to the security of the subject and to sound 
legislation. 

" So fully was the conviction of the practical con- 
venience cu id utility of the two chambers established in 
the Anglican mind that when representative govern- 
ment came to be established in the British North 
American colonies, although the original reason for the 
division of (legislative) power ceased to be applicable, 
it was retained for its incidental advantages. In none 
of the colonies was there any difference of social con- 
dition, or political privilege or power, recognized in the 
system of representation; and as there were therefore 
no separate estates or orders among the people requir- 
ing to be protected against each other's encroachments, 
or holding different relations to the crown, we cannot 
attribute the adherence to the system of two chambers 
on the part of those who solicited and received the 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 219 

privilege of establishing these colonial governments, to 
any thing but its practical advantages for purposes 
of legislation. 

"Still less after the Revolution, and when there no 
longer existed any such motive as might have influ- 
enced the crown in modeling the colonial after the im- 
perial to a certain extent, was it probable that the 
people of these States should have perpetuated in their 
constitutions the principle of a division of the Legisla- 
ture into two chambers for any other purpose than to 
secure the practical benefits which they and their ances- 
tors had always found to flow from it. . . 

"As a new government was now about to be formed, 
whose theoretical and actual powers were to be so es- 
sentially different (from those of the old Confederation), 
an opportunity was afforded for the ancient and favorite 
construction of the legislative department. . . . 

" The happy expedient of selecting the States as the 
basis of representation in the senate has furnished a 
really different foundation for the two branches, as dis- 
tinct as the separate representation of the different 
orders in the British Constitution. It has thus secured 
the incidental advantages of two chambers without 
resorting to those fluctuating and arbitrary distinctions 
among the people which can never afford, in such a 
country as ours, even an ostensible difference for the 
origin of legislative bodies." * 

"The objects of a senate were in the first place that 
there might be a second chamber with concurrent au- 
thority in the enactment of laws. Secondly, that a 
*Vol. ii, pp. 130-34. 



220 Principles of Church Government. 

greater degree of wisdom and stability might reside in 
its deliberations than would be likely to be found in 
the other branch of the legislative department; thirdly, 
that there might be some diversity of interests between 
the two bodies. These objects were to be attained only 
by providing for the senate a distinct and separate 
basis of its own." * 

" The people of these colonies in general, therefore, 
saw that nothing was so important in constructing a 
government with popular institutions as to balance the 
legislative, executive, and judicial departments, each 
against the others, so as to leave to neither of them 
uncontrolled and irresponsible power. In general, too, 
they understood and had always been accustomed to 
the applications of that other fundamental principle 
essential to well regulated liberty — the division of the 
legislative pov^er betioeen two separate chambers having 
distinct origin and of distinct construction." f 

Webster says that u if all legislative power rested in 
one house it is very problematical whether any proper 
independence could be given to either the executive or 
judiciary. Experience does not speak encouragingly 
upon this point. If we look through the several con- 
stitutions of the States we shall perceive generally that 
where the departments are most distinct and indepen- 
dent there the legislature is composed of two houses 
with equal authority and mutual checks. If the legis- 
lative power be in one popular body all other power 
will sooner or later be there also." 

The testimony of all legislative science on this point 
*\ r ol. ii. p. 138. f Vol. I p. 119. 



The Constitution to be Guarded. 221 

is sharp, clear, and incisive. There is but one effectual 
shield for the defense of constitutionally distributed 
power from the aggressions of legislative ambition, and 
that is the division of the legislative body into two dis- 
tinct and separate houses. 

Will any man rise here in his place and deny that in 
this body there exists a " strong propensity to accumu- 
late all power, patronage, and influence ? " We will 
congratulate the Church on such a denial, on the dawn 
of sanity, and will take it as an encouragement to pro- 
ceed in the work of so enfilading our constitution by 
the double ramparts of a divided legislature that en- 
croachments upon our liberties by this body would be 
an impossibility. 

Will any man rise here and deny that ours is a free 
constitution, and affirm, with Bishop Hamline, that this 
body has " universal supremacy ; " that all the powers 
of the law-maker, the judge, and the executioner are 
lodged in the same hands, thus answering to the very 
definition of despotic government, and, if true, making 
our government in fact a despotism ? If so, we shall 
not only sympathize with him in his affliction — for any 
man who carries such a conviction as that in this free 
land must be a very sad man and in need of sympathy ; 
but we would sincerely thank him for thus most effect- 
ually clinching on the other side the two-house argument 
which we have substantially driven in the interests of 
a free constitution. 

Hear John Adams. After a most searching analysis 
" of all mixed and free governments which have ever 
existed, from the earliest records of time," he deduces 



222 Principles of Church Government. 

the following " great practical truth," which we com- 
mend to all disciples of Haralinean despotism : " Single 
assemblies without check or balance in a government 
with all authority collected into one center have been 
visionary, violent, corrupt, and tyrannical dominations 
of majorities over minorities." * 

* Adams, Defense of the American Constitution, vol. iii, p. 402. 



Injudicious Legislation to be Avoided. 223 



CHAPTER XIII. 

INJUDICIOUS LEGISLATION TO BE AVOIDED. 

DR. PERRINE'S SECOND ARGUMENT IN THE BALTIMORE SPEECH. 

Again, sir, the division of this General Conference 
body into two distinct and separate houses is demanded 
for the more efficient protection of the interests of the 
Church against the perils of hasty, indiscreet, and op- 
pressive legislation. 

In his Constitutional History of England, May says: 
"Timely delays in legislation, a cautious review of 
public measures, resistance to the tyranny of majorities 
and the violence of a faction — the means of judicious 
compromise are all wanting in a single chamber." * 

" One great object," says Chancellor Kent, " of the 
separation of the legislature into two houses,f acting 
separately and with co-ordinate powers, is to destroy 

* Vol. ii, p. 536. 

f Jefferson one day visited "Washington, and full as Jefferson was 
of French views and ideas of politics and every thing else, he zealous- 
ly attacked the system of two houses of Congress. General Wash- 
ington replied that Jefferson was much better informed than himself 
upon such topics, and that he himself would adhere to the experience 
of English and American history. "You yourself," said the general, 
u have proved the excellence of two houses this very moment." 

" I ? " said Jefferson ; " how is that ? " 

"You have," replied the heroic sage, "poured your hot tea from 
the cup into the saucer to cool it. It is the same thing we desire of 
the two houses." 



224: Peinciples of Chuech Goveenment. 

the effects of sudden and strong excitements, and of 
precipitate measures springing from passion, caprice, 
prejudice, personal influence, and party intrigue, which 
have been found by sad experience to exercise a potent 
and dangerous sway in single assemblies. A hasty de- 
cision is not so likely to proceed to the solemnities of a 
law when it is to be arrested in its course, and made to 
undergo the deliberative, and probably jealous, critical 
revision of another and rival body of men sitting in 
another place, and under better advantages to avoid 
the prepossessions and correct the errors of the other 
branch." * 

But will any one say that these prudential regula- 
tions, however self-evident, wise, and invaluable when 
applied to the legislation of the State, lose much of 
their significance when applied to the legislation of the 
Church, which is intended for altogether another pur- 
pose and to be enforced by altogether different pen- 
alties ? 

We are quite willing to grant that these objects do 
respectively differ as the protection and promotion of 
the spiritual and eternal interests of the Church differ 
from the protection and promotion of the material and 
temporal interests of the State ; and that the penalties 
attached differ as the pains of ecclesiastical censure and 
exclusion from ecclesiastical privileges differ from the 
terrors of the sword. Nevertheless, the legislative 
function is one in Church and State — the enactment of 
rules and regulations for the protection and promotion 
of values. And shall we not need substantially the same 
* Comment., vol. i, p 224. 



Injudicious Legislation to be Avoided. 225 

legislative expedients, the same prudential safeguards, 
which political science affords ? 

Will any one affirm that the spiritual and eternal in- 
terests to be protected and promoted by the legislation 
of the Church are less in value than are the material 
and temporal interests to be secured by the legislation 
of the State, or that they are more easily and graciously 
secured ? 

Will mere goodness reveal more light upon legisla- 
tive principles than mere patriotism? Is God mctfe 
likely to intervene miraculously in aid of the legis- 
lators of a Church which publishes to the world that 
" no part of its Church government is inspired," than 
in aid of the legislators of the State who proclaim their 
convictions that "the powers that be are ordained of 
God," and stamp upon the new coinage of the restored 
republic, " In God we trust ?" 

Are ecclesiastical legislators less tenacious of their 
opinions, or less warm in their advocacy of measures 
which they believe will touch on eternal interests, than 
the statesmen whose solicitude relates only to the in- 
terests of time ? 

Will any say that the great religious controversies of 
the world, touching Church doctrine and government, 
have been less fierce and stormy than those that have 
related merely to political themes ? 

Are ministerial councils usually less in haste to get 

through with the business of the session and to be away 

than are the legislators of the State, who are paid in 

proportion to the length of the session ? 

Would it be difficult to determine in which the 
15 



226 Principles of Church Government. 

temptation to hasty, indiscreet legislation would be the 
more urgent ? 

Can it be said that deliberation, precaution, discre- 
tion are virtues of less weight in the legislation of the 
Church than of the State ? that impetuosity, precip- 
itancy, passion, prejudice, are less obnoxious in relig- 
ious than in political assemblies ? * 

Can it be said that the consequences of ill-timed and 
obnoxious legislation in the councils of the Church are 
less fearful and far-reaching than in those of the State ? 

Is it to be presumed that the first cords that snapped 
in the dissolution of the union between the North and 
the South, amid the excitements of this body in 1844, 
will be the first that shall be fully restored ? 

Are the humiliations and griefs of clerical legislators, 
whose blunders are not only written down in the cold, 
clear page of history, but memorialized in the continued 
disasters of the Church, less profound and pungent 
than those which politicians feel over similar blunders 
and similar disasters ? 

Do you suppose it would have cost a political his- 
torian more to write up the faithful record of his 
own well-meant but ill-timed measures than it cost 
the honor-bright, intrepid spirit of Dr. Charles Elliott, 
whose generous and chivalric nature had prompted him 

* "Judge Hubbard characterized the General Conference (of 1872) 
as an undeliberate body without a leader and without influence, doing 
business in a hap-hazard manner. Dr. Charles Bennett corroborated 
Judge Hubbard's characterization of the General Conference. It was 
almost impossible to get the floor, and anpid the bustle and confusion 
he many times wished himself at home." — North-western, August 28, 
1872. 



Injudicious Legislation to be Avoided. 227 

to move as a peace measure the adoption of the so- 
called "plan of separation," when called upon by this 
body to write up the record of its disastrous workings ? 

We affirm it, the man who could, in his close self- 
control, write out as he wrote the sentence of his own 
condemnation for the eye of all subsequent time, is 
" greater than he that taketh a city." 

We copy a fragment of that heroic, self-crucifying 
sentence : "In regard to the pl.-in of separation, the fol- 
lowing may be put down as the common opinion into 
which the facts in the case have brought the mind of 
the Church; namely, the plan either ab initio or dejure, 
or in its relations, connections, or consequences, is un- 
constitutional ! " * 

Need I say that the man who could write such a sen- 
tence is worthy of a monument that should rake the 
clouds, and, towering in the gaze of the ages to come, 
should stand not only as the fitting memorial of that 
candor and devotion to the interests of truth and the 
Church which triumphs over the humiliation of self, but 
as a shaft of admonition and terror to all hasty and 
impetuous legislators in the Church; for let it never be 
forgotten that every resolution of that most unconsti- 
tutional, disastrous, and humiliating " plan of separa- 
tion " was passed under the whip of the " previous 
question! ! !" 

And allow me, brethren, after first invoking with 
confidence on the part of many of the noblest within 
the reach of my voice the same candor, the same in- 
trepid devotion to the interests of the Church, the same 
* History of Great Secession, p. 542. 



228 Principles of Church Government. 

triumph in that devotion over the humiliations of self 
that has forever glorified the name of Charles Elliott 
— permit me, I beg of you, to refer to another illustra- 
tion of the dangers and follies of hasty and impetuous 
legislation in the Church. We allude to the passage of 
the Plan of Lay Delegation — a plan (tell it not in Gath!) 
drafted over night and next morning rushed through 
this body, without printing (/ /) and almost without dis- 
cussion; and yet, forsooth, " recommended to the godly 
consideration of the Church! !!" Was ever "godly 
consideration " so illustrated and enforced ? 

Mr. President, there are " mysteries of godliness " 
which I most devoutly believe — that is, I believe the 
fact revealed, notwithstanding the mystery of the cause 
concealed. But, sir, such was the bewilderment pro- 
duced by the legislative velocity with which this body 
flew over the ground of the plan at Chicago that nei- 
ther they nor any one in the whole field of the Church 
besides seem to have been able to catch even a glimpse 
of any thing like a fact or event of "godly considera- 
tion " in the whole history of the plan, thus far, that 
could challenge for an instant the faith of the world. 

Will any one affirm that the plan was submitted to 
the " godly consideration " of the laity, and that they 
could have expressed their godly judgment of its mer- 
its at the polls ? Every editor in the Church exclaimed, 
" No, no ! The vote of the laity is not for or against 
the plan, but for or against the principle, of lay repre- 
sentation. The plan can be modified by the next Gen- 
eral Conference ad libitum" And they were right. 
The vote of the laity was on the principle, not on the 



Injudicious Legislation to be Avoided. 229 

plan ; and that caution, passed along the recoiling line 
again and again, alone saved the cause among the laity, 
for objections against the plan sprang up like a dark- 
ening host of armed men, threatening its very existence 
if once brought within the reach of their bullet-like 
ballots. The fact of "godly consideration" was not 
yet. 

Does any one suppose that the plan was submitted 
to the " godly consideration " of the members of the 
Annual Conferences, and that it was ever placed within 
reach of their ballot ? If so they are quite in error, 
for Bishop Simpson, who had evidently made a careful 
analysis of the mysteries of the plan, stated at many, 
if not all, the Annual Conferences presided over by 
him, with the utmost perspicuity and justness, that 
"the vote of the Conference is not to be on the plan, 
but simply and alone on the alteration of the restrictive 
rule." * 

This just and timely caution saved the cause among 
the ministry, for bitter and indignant hostility to the 
plan was turned aside, and its enemies persuaded to 
vote "aye" on the principle by the emphatic declara- 
tion that " the plan would be in the hands of the next 
General Conference to alter and amend at pleasure; 
that these modifications could include every thing ex- 
cept the number of lay delegates." f 

The Annual Conferences could not touch the plan, 
even in the remotest degree, by their votes. The 
" godly consideration " recommended was yet in the 
future ! Did we look forward to the opening of the 

* ZiorCs Herald, April 21, 1870. f Ibid., May 5, 1870. 



230 Principles of Church Government. 

General Conference at Brooklyn for some modifications 
of the plan before the laymen were admitted ? Not 
with much hope; for, amazing as it may seem, no sooner 
had the desired majority among people and preachers 
been achieved than an early " manifesto " of some of 
the committee that drafted that over-night plan, which 
had prudently been allowed to slumber, was sent out 
among all the thousands of our Israel, proclaiming to 
astonished multitudes that " a provisional plan of lay 
delegation is so determined that it and no other can be- 
come the law of the Church ! " And so a pressure of 
" honor bound to the laity " was so successfully worked 
up that the plan was shot th rough the opening session 
before the powder of the previous question with most 
astonishing velocity; and, what is most surprising of 
all, the laymen themselves, none of whom could have 
fully approved the plan, after ramming it down the 
grooves of their convention, came in, and by resolutions 
shot it off and on, without debate, for at least four 
years more ! We stand here to-day, at the expiration 
of the aforesaid four years, to announce that the 
"godly consideration" so singularly recommended, 
after eight full calendar years is still to come. With 
the millennium, it is still in the future. 

Will any one claim that these marvelous opportuni- 
ties for playing fast and loose according to the perils 
or urgencies of the times, so far from being blunders, 
were the convincing evidence of the prophet-like sa- 
gacity of the drafters of that pl.m ? We shudder, sir, 
at the dishonor such an imputation would cast upon the 
fair fame of the noblest and ablest and truest men we 



Injudicious Legislation to be Avoided. 231 

have among us; men who are entirely incapable of such 
duplicity, such double-dealing. The fault, sir, was not 
in the men, but in the impetuous methods of all single 
and overgrown assemblies. The disease is chronic. It 
is incorporate in our system. The same system which 
gave to the committee appointed " to prepare," in reply 
to the Southern protest of 1844, "a document in rela- 
tion to some of the most important questions that ever 
engaged the attention of the Church " only the few 
brief hours that intervened between " Saturday evening, 
June 8, and Monday, June 10, late in the afternoon 
session ! ! "* gave at Chicago, in 1868, to the Commit- 
tee on the Plan of Lay Delegation, which was to estab- 
lish or overturn the scriptural foundations on which 
our fathers had built up so prayerfully and zealously 
the whole superstructure of our Church government, 
" a night session ! ! ! " We need not say, sir, that the 
system which can permit such indecent haste, such im- 
petuosity in the gravest legislation of the Church, is but 
little credit to it — that it calls aloud for amendment; 
that the specific remedy which legislative science points 
out is the check of distinct and separate houses — the 
legislative brake, with which the Church may shut down 
upon all such crude and hastily prepared legislative 
schemes; by which it may compel deliberation. 
* History of the Great Secession, p. 34?. 



232 Principles of Church Government. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE IMPORTANT INTERESTS TO BE PROTECTED. 

THIRD ARGUMENT IN THE GENERAL CONFERENCE SPEECH. 

The division of this body into two distinct and sepa- 
rate houses is demanded for the better protection of 
the interests of the ministerial and lay orders so dis- 
tinctly recognized in the plan, and so decidedly marked 
on all the pages of the Church's history. 

As to the origin or authority of these orders in the 
scriptural organism of the Church we are not, in this 
argument, particularly concerned. It will be sufficient 
for our purpose to observe that these orders have always 
existed, and that they probably always will exist in the 
militant Church, and especially that they are the de 
facto orders of the plan with which we have to do. 

The mutual liability of these orders to encroach upon 
each other's prerogatives is a fact which cannot well be 
denied. History abounds in the most melancholy illus- 
trations and startling evidences of the existence of 
imminent and fearful peril. 

The usurpation by the order of the clergy of nearly 
all the sacred rights and privileges of the laity consti- 
tutes the long-continued and powerful ecclesiastical 
despotism of Rome, and the arrogation to the order of 
the laity of at least some of the sacred rights and 
scriptural functions of the order of the ministry has 



Important Interests to be Protected. 233 

given us the comparative weakness and inefficiency of 
many of the sects of Protestantism. 

But, sir, we need not argue this point. The provis- 
ion for " a separate vote " in the plan concedes the de- 
mand there is for protection.* To accomplish our pur- 
pose we have but to point out to this body a few of the 
main evidences that the provisions of the plan are 
inadequate to secure the rights of either order, espe- 
cially of the laity. It is a fact of marvelous signifi- 
cance that there is nothing in the plan to designate 
the number of either order that shall be necessary 
to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 
The order of the laity, at the last General Conference, 
might have been left out of the quorum altogether 
without in the least violating the letter of the plan; 
for there were more than "two thirds of the whole 
number of ministerial and lay delegates" in the clerical 
order alone, out of which the quorum could have been 
formed. 

On the last day of the Brooklyn session, in which 
some of the most important business of the session was 
transacted, nearly two thirds of the laymen were absent, 
and, so far as the plan was concerned, might all have 

* In a speech before the Brooklyn General Conference in 1872 
Judge Goodrich, of Rock River, spoke of the provision for voting sep- 
arately, when either order should demand it, as follows : " This meas- 
ure, it seems to me, is one of protection, not of aggression, a power by 
which the laymen as well as the ministry can protect themselves, 
and if the laity attempt to encroach upon the rights of the ministry 
they can protect themselves ; that was all that was intended by those 
who originated this scheme." — Daily Christian Advocate, May 22, 1872. 
—J. H. P. 



234 Principles of Church Government. 

been so without invalidation to the legislation of the ses- 
sion in the slightest degree. Apian making no provision 
against such possible contingencies, sir, certainly does 
not furnish the surest safeguard of the interests of the 
laity in the General Conference, and political sagacity 
can never justify such laxity of legal restraint, or such 
possible remissness on the part of the chosen represent- 
atives of the people under the plan. Political science 
never trusts the interests of a certain class to the mere 
generosity or goodness of another class. It fortifies 
the interests of each class in the very structure of the 
government, so that the defensive ramparts of each 
class shall enfilade the threatening positions of every 
aggressive class. 

Again, and here we shake, as with our foot, the ver- 
iest bog that was ever under a tottering structure. The 
interests of both orders are equally imperiled by the 
amazing fact that to a small minority, without superior 
facilities for reaching maturer or safer conclusions, 
power is given to bar a majority ! ! 

In the United States Senate, where the previous ques- 
tion is never moved, where discussion is absolutely un- 
restricted, where the incumbents hold their positions by 
a tenure three times as long as the representatives of 
the people, and are thus three times as far removed from 
all popular waves of excitement, with more than three 
times the advantages for arriving at juster judgments 
and maturer measures — there legislative wisdom will 
allow a minority of senators to check or bar a major- 
ity of representatives ; but in the plan of Episcopal 
Methodism a small minority, sitting in the same 



Important Interests to be Protected. 235 

overgrown assembly, listening to the same speeches, 
under the same waves of popular excitement, subject 
to the manipulations of the same adroit leadership, 
amazing as it may seem, have organic power to bar 
a large majority, and to thus effectually control all 
legislation! Were the fundamental principles of de- 
mocracy and legislative science ever more conspicu- 
ously violated ? 

How can the interests of either order be safe under 
the workings of a plan which, according to the most 
favorable interpretation possible, may subject the entire 
legislation of the Church to the dictation of twenty- 
three laymen, and which, according to the interpreta- 
tion most natural and evident, places it at the mercy 
of five only ! 

Are you skeptical ? Look at it. We will take the 
best possible principle of interpretation to which the 
plan maybe subjected; namely, that no less than one 
third of the whole number of either order elect can 
demand a separate vote. Now, sir, the whole number 
of laymen in the present body is one hundred and 
thirty-five, and one third of the whole number is forty- 
five, who alone can order a separate vote. But the 
vote once ordered, a majority of this number, or twenty- 
three, may concur in or defeat every measure in the 
legislation of the Church ! ! ! 

Now, sir, take what may be called the worst principle 
of interpretation, and yet, as we believe, the most nat- 
ural and sensible, that " one third of either order," in 
the quorum which is ready for the transaction of busi- 
ness, may order a separate vote. But if all the clerical 



236 Principles of Church Government. 

delegates are present fifteen laymen only will be neces- 
sary to constitute a quorum, and fine, or one third of 
that number, may order a separate vote, and thus key, 
bolt, or bar the entire legislation of Episcopal Method- 
ism!* 

Objectionable and preposterous as this may seem, sir, 
we regret to say that this possibility of a small minority 
barring a large majority of the Conference does not 
fully exhibit the imminent perils of the plan; for, this 
call for a separate vote being optional, we have precisely 
the condition for the natural and inevitable develop- 
ment of those suspicions, jealousies, and counterplot- 
tings which, in the natural hot-bed of a single over- 
grown popular assembly, can but operate to the preju- 
dice, if not the destruction, of all the interests of either 
order involved. In the Episcopal General Convention 
both orders invariably vote separately, according to 
constitutional provision, and thus avoid at least one 

* Bishop Harris ruled at Baltimore, Saturday, May 26, 1816, that 
" one third of the laymen present in the quorum may order a separate 
vote.'' In the same General Conference, under a call for the previous 
question, James S. Smart moved the adoption of the following: 

" Besolved, That the vote be taken by the ministers and laymen 
separately." 

A question of order having been raised concerning the call for a 
separate vote, Bishop Simpson decided that the separate vote of the 
ministry could be called for only by a minister, and the separate vote 
of the laity only by a layman, and that if on such a call one third of 
either order made such a demand, the separate vote must be taken. 
From this decision the mover of the resolution appealed, but the rul- 
ing of the bishop was sustained by the Conference. — Journal, 1872, 
pp. 147, 148. 



Important Interests to be Protected. 237 

occasion of stirring up bad blood between the differing 
orders in the body.* 

For the protection of all the interests of the various 
orders of society in the field of legislation, history has 
vindicated the wisdom not only of a separate vote, but 
of separate deliberations — of separate houses. This 
idea of the protection of orders is the very root out of 
which the political wisdom of the ages has branched 
into the divisions of the legislative body. From the 
days of Homer to our own the thorough-going, prac- 
tical sense of the world has provided separate houses 
for the protection of distinct classes of orders in 
society. 

Among the Greeks there was the JBoula, or council 
of the elders, who, as Homer tells us, sat in a circle 
around the king as counselors for the protection of 
the interests of royalty. And then there was the 

* At the General Conference of 1872 Richard W. Thompson, of 
Indiana, having asked for a separate vote of the two orders in the 
election of bishops, Judge Goodrich, of Rock River, said: "I am very- 
sorry that in this body, on such an important occasion as this, there 
has come such a call as this. I supposed that we had come here 
on an equality, and I did not think that there was any layman 
on this floor that would ask that in the election of bishops thirty- 
four laymen should control this General Conference. (Hear! hear!) 
It seems to me in such a vote as this it is preposterous, and I 
believe it is the entering wedge of a separation on other questions, 
and the arousing of a spirit of antagonism between the laity and the 
ministry which was never contemplated by those who voted that 
lay delegation should be introduced into the General Conference. . . . 
It seems to me it is wrong — a great wrong — and I hope it will never 
be perpetuated here." The call was not sustained, over two thirds 
of the laymen voting in the negative. — J. H. P. 



238 Principles of Church Government. 

Agora, the tentative assembly of the people, to which 
the king used to come down to " feel his way," meeting 
with smiles or frowns, cheers of approbation or hollow 
murmurs of dissent, as his propositions pleased or of- 
fended them. 

Among the Romans, the civil law-givers of the world, 
the /Senate, the members of which represented the three 
hundred sovereign clans of Rome, was especially the 
bulwark of the prerogatives of royalty, and the Comitia 
Curiata or Centuriata the protectors of their respect- 
ive constituencies among the people. Out of these, the 
natural tentaculce of the old monarchies, the distinct 
and separate legislative organs of constitutional mon- 
archies and of the free republics of more recent times 
have been developed. The House of Lords, the natural 
protectors of constitutional royalty, and the House of 
Commons, the champions of the people, have always, at 
least so far as history has thrown its light, sat and de- 
liberated apart. " The opinion that the several estates 
sat and voted together," says Lingard, "derives no 
support from the rolls. It is evident," he continues, 
" that as their grants, their petitions, and their interests 
were different they woidd deliberate separately, and we 
find the chancellor after he had proposed to them in 
common the subjects for their consideration, pointed 
out to them different chambers in which they should 
assemble." * 

Hallam, one of the most reliable of historians, says: 
" That they (the two houses of Parliament) were ever 
intermingled in voting appears inconsistent with likeli- 
*Lingard's History of England, vol. iv, p. 120. 



Important Interests to be Protected. 239 

hood and authority. . . . There is abundance of proof 
of their separate existence long before the seventeenth 
year of Edward III. The Commons sat at Acton Bur- 
nell, while the upper house was at Shrewsbury." * 

All authorities agree that throughout a period of 
three hundred years, while the House of Lords con- 
vened in Westminster Hall, which was built expressly 
for them by Rufus, the House of Commons held its 
sessions in a department of Westminster Abbey. The 
philosophy of protection in these separate sittings is 
well given in the following from Blackstone : " The no- 
bility," says our author, " are the pillars which are 
reared from the people more immediately for the sup- 
port of the throne. And since titles of nobility are 
thus expedient to the State, it is also expedient that 
they should form a separate branch of the Legislature." 

If they were confounded with the mass of the people, 
and like them had only a vote in electing representa- 
tives, their privileges would soon be borne down and 
overwhelmed by the popular torrent, which would ef- 
fectually level all distinctions therefrom. It is highly 
necessary that the body of the nobles should have a 
distinct assembly, distinct deliberations, and distinct 
powers from the Commons, f 

And De Lolme says: "The representatives of the 
people, on the other hand, do not fail to procure for 
themselves every advantage that may enable them to 
use the powers with which they have been intrusted, 
and to adopt every rule of proceeding that may make 

*Hallam's Constitutional History of England, p. 26. 
f Comment, vol. i, p. 57. 



240 Principles of Church Government. 

their resolutions to be truly the result of reflection and 
deliberation. Thus it was," says this astute writer, 
"that the representatives of the English nation, soon 
after their first establishment, became formed into a 
separate assembly" * 

We hazard nothing in the statement that the laity of 
the last General Conference did more for the protection 
of their rights, as an order, in the three or four hours 
in which they were convened as a distinct and separate 
deliberative body, at Washington Street Church, than 
in all the weeks of that protracted session besides. Dis- 
tinct and separate assemblies for the protection of dif- 
ferent orders is the common sense of history. 
* Constitutional History of England, p. 248. 



The Division of Labor Principle. 241 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE DIVISION OF LABOR PRINCIPLE. 

FOURTH ARGUMENT OF THE BALTIMORE SPEECH. 

Again, sir, the division of our legislative body into 
two distinct and separate houses is demanded by the 
highest aud most authoritative principle of civilization 
— the division of labor principle. 

We shall not attempt, before so learned a body as 
this, the elucidation of one of the most fundamental 
postulates found in every text-book on political econ- 
omy in Christendom. All study, all observation, all 
experience, attest its validity. Special aptitudes, spe- 
cial opportunity, special effort, and consequent special 
qualifications, give genuine economy of time, economy 
of labor, economy of capital — whether of brain or mon- 
ey — and genuine economy of results. The common 
sense of the world goes to reputable physicians with its 
questions of medicine; to first-class lawyers with its 
points of law ; to famous financiers with its problems of 
finance; and as naturally to the distinguished sages of 
the Christian ministry with its questions of ecclesiastical 
polity. 

This principle, sir, originating in the special functions 

of the differing persons of the Godhead, in the great 

work of redemption, illustrated in the distribution of a 

universe of varying physical, mental, and moral forces 
16 



242 Principles of Church Government. 

to their particular ends, and enthroned on the very 
summits of Christian civilization, we would naturally 
suppose it might be introduced with profit into the 
legislation of the Church. 

Indeed, sir, that very division of the legislative body 
which is demanded for the protection of the free consti- 
tution of the Church, for the protection of its general 
interests from the perils of hasty and indiscreet legisla- 
tion, and especially for the mutual protection of the 
two great and distinctive orders of the Church, affords 
us precisely the condition for the most happy and thor- 
ough application of this most authoritative principle. 
It is evident, at a glance, that the division of any legis- 
lative body into two distinct and separate houses must 
double the number of speakers on the floor, must double 
the number of hours of deliberation, both in the com- 
mittees and in the sessions of the bodies each day — thus 
doubling, of course, the freedom of debate and the con- 
sequent thoroughness and safety of legislation. 

As measures prepared with a degree of care that dare 
challenge the clear, cold, impartial, and searching scru- 
tiny of a rival house could with safety be much more 
speedily disposed of in the concurring body, there 
would be on the whole a manifest economy of time, as 
well as greater security of interests, in our Church coun- 
cils. In the triennial sessions of the General Conven- 
tion of the Episcopal Church, such is the practical value 
of this doubling of the hours, powers, and facilities for 
deliberation that they are enabled to diminish the time 
usually occupied by single houses in their sessions 
nearly, if not quite, one half. Thus, although the Gen- 



The Division of Labor Principle. 243 

eral Convention of 1865 met in Philadelphia on Octo- 
ber 4, and the published Journal of their proceedings 
is quite as voluminous as that of our General Confer- 
ence of 1860, yet they were enabled to adjourn on the 
24th of the same month, occupying in their delibera- 
tions, exclusive of three Sundays, but seventeen days. 

Where the initiative in certain classes of measures is 
respectively given to each house, the economy of time, 
labor, and legislative capital or talent, in the highest 
possible degree, will be most impressively illustrated. 

Thus, while the House of Lords is discussing the pre- 
rogatives of the crown, or the privileges of the peerage, 
the House of Commons could most economically occupy 
the same time in giving origin and form to their " mon- 
ey bills," a right which the representatives of the peo- 
ple in England have held for ages with an ever-tight- 
ening constitutional grasp. 

To come a little nearer home: While the senators 
of the United States, upon whom rests with special 
responsibility the duty of determining our relations with 
the nations of the earth, are engrossed in discussing the 
provisions of a foreign treaty, or in debating those 
fundamental principles or deep-laid conditions upon 
which the finance of nations and of the world must for- 
ever rest, the more immediate representatives of the 
people can be economically engaged in giving origin 
and concrete form to revenue or appropriation bills. 
Or still further, to come directly home: While the 
clerical senators of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
should, in obedience to the behests of the highest legis- 
lative wisdom, be engaged in framing measures for the 



24:± Principles of Church Government. 

well-governing of the Church in things spiritual, for 
which their constant experience in the administration 
of moral discipline ought especially to fit them, the 
House of Lay Representatives will illustrate the divine 
economy there is in the division of labor principle by 
eng.iging meanwhile, as the especial and immediate 
representatives of the people, in giving origin and form 
to all measures of finance and temporalities; for which 
all must agree that their life-work ought, at least, to 
have especially fitted them. 



Harmony and Unity to be Restored. 245 



CHAPTER XVI. 

HARMONY AND UNITY TO BE RESTORED. 

FIFTH ARGUMENT OF THE BALTIMORE SPEECH. 

The division of this General Conference body into 
two distinct, separate, and concurring houses — with the 
initiative as above described — is demanded as the ex- 
press and only possible means for the perfect restora- 
tion of harmony and unity between the apparently 
hopeless and most deplorable antagonisms that exist 
between the principles of the old and new politics of 
Methodism. 

The divine economy, grounded in the eternal fitness 
of legislative things, and rising, as we have seen, in the 
division of labor principle to the very summit of the 
loftiest civilization, shall save us more than time, more 
than labor, more than capital ; it shall save to us the 
most precious of all earthly legacies: the unsullied 
honor of our fathers. 

That the fathers of Methodism, its founders under 
God, both in England and in America, held with abso- 
lute unanimity and posit iveness of conviction the es- 
pecial responsibility of the Christian ministry, as the 
officers appointed by the great Head of the Church for 
the feeding and governing of the flock of Christ in 
spiritual things, the following consensus will forever 
put beyond a question. 



246 Principles of Church Government. 

Hear John Wesley. In his Journal * he says : 
" The Church has a perpetual succession of pastors 
divinely appointed and divinely assisted." On Rev. 
i, 20, " The seven stars are the angels of the seven 
churches," he thus writes in his Notes: "In each 
church there was one pastor, or ruling minister, to 
whom all the rest were subordinate. This pastor, 
bishop, or overseer had the peculiar care of his flock. 
On him the prosperity of that congregation in a great 
measure depended, and he was to answer for all their 
souls at the judgment-seat of Christ." And in the sec- 
ond chapter he continues: "The seven churches, with 
their seven angels, represent the whole Christian 
Church, as it subsists in every age." " This," he says, 
" is a point of deep importance, and always necessary 
to be remembered : that these seven churches are, as it 
were, a sample of the whole Church of Christ, as it was 
then, is now, and as it will be in all ages." In his sermon 
on the text, " Obey them that have the rule over you, and 
submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls as 
they that must give an account" (Heb. xiii, 17), John 
Wesley has, we believe, gone safely between the Scylla 
of Romanism, on the one hand, and the Charybdis of 
Congregationalism on the other. " Many of the Ro- 
manists," he says, " believe an implicit faith is due to 
the doctrine delivered by those who rule over them, and 
that imj^icit obedience ought to be paid to whatever 
commands they give. And not much less has been in- 
sisted on by several eminent men of the Church of En- 
gland ; although it is true that the generality of Prot- 
* Vol. ii, p. 89. 



Harmony and Unity to be Restored. 247 

estants are apt to run to the other extreme, allowing 
their pastors no authority at all, but making them both 
the creatures and the servants of their congregations. 
And very many of the English Church there are who 
agree with them, supposing that the pastor is altogether 
dependent upon the people, who, in their judgment, 
have a right to direct, as well as to choose, their min- 
isters." "But is it not possible," he asks, "to find a 
medium between these two extremes ? Is there any 
necessity for us to run either into one or the other ? If 
we set human laws out of the question and attend to the 
oracles of God, we may certainly discover a middle 
path in this important matter." 

What ! Wesley appealing to the " oracles of God " 
on the most important question of Church government 
that could possibly be raised, the relation of the pastor 
and people, when " no part of our Church government 
is inspired ! " Amazing as it may seem, John Wesley 
did so appeal, and the conclusion he reached is one 
which never can be invalidated by any one who admits 
that obedience to pastors is enjoined in the word of 
God ; a conclusion that not only is the field of optional 
legislation in the Church bounded by the oracles of 
God— by the mountains of positive enactments on the 
one hand, and the "great gulfs" of positive pro- 
hibitions on the other — but that this divinely limited 
field of optional legislation is precisely the domain 
over which the Scriptures install the pastor, elder, or 
bishop as the spiritual governor of the flock of God. 
Mark the resistless vigor of his logic : " The things 
which they (the pastors) enjoin, must be either enjoined 



248 Principles of Chuech Government. 

of God, forbidden by him, or indifferent " (that is, op- 
tional). 

" In things forbidden of God," he continues, " we 
dare not obey them, for we are to obey God rather than 
man. In things enjoined of God we do not properly 
obey them, but our common Father; therefore, if we 
obey them at all it must be in things indifferent (op- 
tional). The sum is, it is the duty of every private 
Christian to obey his spiritual pastor by either doing or 
leaving undone any thing of an indifferent (optional) 
nature; that is, any thing in no way determined in the 
word of God." " How little is this," he exclaims, " un- 
derstood in the Protestant world;" and yet he says, 
" there is not a more express command in the Old or 
New Testament. JVb viord can be more clear and plain; 
no command more direct and positive." * 

And yet, sir, John Wesley's statement with reference 
to the higher and optional officers sometimes elected by 
the pastors or elders, " that neither Christ nor his apos- 
tles prescribe any particular form of Church govern- 
ment," is forthwith made to cancel all that he has so 
explicitly and authoritatively said with reference to the 
scriptural relations of pastors and people ! 

God has " prescribed no particular form" of the nose 
for the adornment of the " human face divine." Nei- 
ther the Roman, the Grecian, nor any other pattern can 
claim to be the " particularly prescribed form." These 
all vary in their outlines or contour with the surround- 
ings of every nation and every individual. And yet it 
is pretty generally believed among Methodists that the 
♦Vol. ii, p. 327. 



Harmony and Unity to be Restored. 249 

function of smelling, the same in all forms, is ordained 
of God ! The form and color of all eyes may differ, yet 
the function of vision, the same in all " particular 
forms," is doubtless divinely prescribed. So " particu- 
lar forms " of Church government may vary, and yet 
the essential functions of pastors and people in the or- 
ganism of the Christian Church may be ordained of God, 
and remain forever the same. 

What matters the differing names of divine, dominie, 
doctor, elder, presbyter, preacher, minister, pastor, or 
teacher ! Is not the function of the ministry substan- 
tially the same in all the Churches, and is not the pas- 
toral function — of spiritually guiding, leading, feeding, 
governing the flock — ordained of God ? And what mat- 
ters the differing names of deacon, steward, vestryman, 
etc.! Is not the function of temporalities substantially 
the same in all the Churches, and was not that function 
ordained of God ? So Wesley believed, and so believed 
John Fletcher, who "was of one heart and one soul" 
with John Wesley. 

He says, " The evangelical ministry is substantially 
the same through every age." " The commission which 
the great apostle received contained essentially nothing 
more thnn the acknowledged duty of every minister of 
the Gospel." Again, " Our pious reformers were unan- 
imously of the opinion that Christ appoints, and in some 
sort inspires, all true pastors; that he commits the flock 
to their keeping, and that their principal care is the same 
with that of the first evangelists." * Writing to Dr. 
Price, of Bristol, he makes the following case: "The 
* Works, vol. iii, p. 20. 



250 Principles of Church Government. 

majority of a certain congregation of Protestants in 
Bristol expressed a desire to have you for their pastor, 
and upon this title you were ordained. But does it fol- 
low that your authority to preach the Gospel ascends 
from your flock to you ? If your congregation insisted 
upon your preaching to them smooth things, or prophe- 
sying deceits, because they chose you to be their minis- 
ter, would you not directly convince them of their folly ! 
Would you not say, ' Gentlemen, though I am your 
minister, and though I was ordained in consequence of 
your suffrages, yet now that I am ordained, I have an 
authority you never gave, nor can give ? ' " 

These are the sentiments of the man, sir, who drove 
the Wesleyan war chariots, all aflame with lightnings of 
Bible logic, along the entire line of the Arminian bat- 
tle. The authority of the pastor is simply that of an 
elective office, but that office is empowered by Him who 
" gave some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of 
saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of 
the body of Christ ; " just as the authority of President 
Grant, in a constitutional office, is the authority which 
comes not directly from those who elect him, but from 
the Constitution, the organic law of the States, enacted 
three fourths of a century ago. 

Richard Watson, who, as Dr. Stevens says, " was the 
most commanding intellect of Wesleyan Methodism," 
says : " That these elders or presbyters had the power 
of government cannot be denied, because it is expressly 
assigned to them in the Scriptures; it was inherent in 
their pastoral office." * This " most commanding intel- 
* Inst., vol. ii, p. 597. 



Harmony and Unity to be Restored. 25 i 

lect" tells us that "the term pastor implies the duties 
of instruction and government, of feeding and ruling 
the flock of Christ; and as the presbyters or bishops 
were ordained in the several Churches both by the 
apostles and the evangelists, and rules are left by St. 
Paul as to their appointment, there can be no doubt 
that these are the pastors spoken of in Eph. iv, 11, 
(as of divine appointment), and that they were designed 
to be the permanent ministers of the Church, and that 
with them both the government of the Church and the 
performance of its leading religious services were de- 
posited." * And again: '" There seems, therefore, to 
be the most conclusive evidence from the New Testa- 
ment that, after the extraordinary ministry vested in 
apostles, prophets, and evangelists had ceased, the feed- 
ing and oversight — that is, the teaching and govern- 
ment of the Churches — devolved upon an order of 
men indiscriminately called pastors, presbyters, and 
bishops." f And with Richard Watson the fathers of 
American Methodism most fully and cordially agree. 

Coke and Asbury declare, in their notes on the Dis- 
cipline, that the "office of elder" is one which every 
organized Church in the world and in all ages has 
adopted." They are very clear and explicit in their 
remarks. On Heb. xiii, 7, 17, they observe : "The 
persons here described as having the rule, and a right 
to obedience and submission, were persons who had 
spoken the word of God to the people and watched 
over their souls, consequently were their preachers and 
pastors."— P. 335. 

* Inst, vol. ii, p. 515. f Ibid., vol. ii, p. 516. 



252 Principles of Church Government. 

"The pastors are the persons responsible to God, 
and therefore should be by no means fettered in their 
pastoral care." — P. 332. 

" The word of God is that on which we principally 
stand, knowing well that every passage which relates 
to this subject is wholly on our side." — P. 336. And 
" this commission," they tell us, is " to all ministering 
servants to the end of the world." — P. 306. 

" If the Church," says Dr. Whedon, " would teach 
her sons to reason well, and to defend her institutes, 
let them study John Emory." We like that, but what 
does Bishop John Emory say to the sons of the Church ? 
Hear him: 

1. " We offer our doctrines and Discipline not as in- 
ventions of our own, but as a summary of what we be- 
lieve to be in the Bible, with such prudential means 
and regulations as we think best calculated to enable 
us as a body to carry them into effect, to fulfill an 
efficient pastoral oversight." 

Again Bishop John Emory says: "The grent Head 
of the Church has imposed on us the duty of preaching 
the Gospel, of administering its ordinances, and main- 
taining its moral discipline among those over whom the 
Holy Ghost hath in these respects made us overseers. 
Of these also, namely, of Gospel doctrines, ordinances, 
and moral discipline, we do believe that the divinely in- 
stituted ministry are the divinely authorized expound- 
ers, and that the duty of maintaining them in their 
purity, and of not permitting our ministrations in these 
respects to be authoritatively controlled by others, 
does rest upon us with the force of a moral obligation, 



Harmony and Unity to be Restored. 253 

in the due discharge of which our consciences are in- 
volved. . .. It is on this ground that we resist the 
temptations of temporal advantage which the proposed 
changes hold out to us." * 

2. Again: " To invest the ministry with any author- 
ity other than that which strictly belongs to their pas- 
toral office, agreeably to Gospel order, is utterly foreign 
to our desire. But if, on the other hand, they are to 
be authoritative!]/ controlled by others in relation to 
doctrines, ordinances, and moral discipline, then is 
there, in our judgment, an end of mutual rights and 
of the peculiar functions of the Christian ministry." — 
P. 180. 

It was once a popular thing to have a " conscience " 
on Church government. The whole General Conference 
of 1828 said their "consciences were involved" in this 
question of ministerial powers. Alas, how have the 
mighty fallen! Our last quotation upon this point shall 
be from the pen of that distinguished lay defender of 
the fathers, Dr. Bond. He says: "We believe the 
Scriptures nowhere prescribe any form of government 
for the Christian Church. This, however," he modestly 
adds, "is only our opinion." f But what can Dr. Bond 
mean by that? — that every thing in Church govern- 
ment is optional, every thing at the shaping or molding 
of circumstances, nothing permanent, no divine con- 
stancy? Hear him: " Church government, then, can-, 
not bear any just analogy to a commonwealth or a re- 
public, the essential element of which is that the whole 
system of government is a conventional agreement or 

* Life of John Emory, p. 180. f Economy of Methodism, p. 23. 



25i PRINCIPLES OF ChUKCH GOVERNMENT. 

compact, which may be modified from time to time by 
those who framed it as circumstances may require, or 
be utterly changed by the governed. . . . The Church 
of Christ is his kingdom. He has the absolute sover- 
eignty over it, having enacted a complete, perfect code, 
which no man or council may repeal, alter, add to, or 
subtract from, and obedience to which is promised by 
every subject of this kingdom." — P. 5. "In Church 
government the supreme power is acknowledged to 
reside in one only Lord and Lawgiver, to whose au- 
thority all must submit implicitly. And it is further 
admitted that he also selects and appoints officers, who 
are to execute his commandments. The first is to ' preach 
the Gospel to every creature,' etc. The next com- 
mandment is that these officers shall take the 'over- 
sight' of the Church as those who must give an ac- 
count of the members to God. And," he adds, "it 
would seem to follow that they must devise the rules 
and regulations which are necessary to the execution of 
the trust confided to them — the preaching of the Gospel 
and the oversight of those who are converted by their 
ministry." — P. 4. We need go no further. 

But how have these convictions been regarded ? Is 
it a graceful, a fitting thing for a child to strike its 
parent ? Is it a thing to be commended that Methodists 
should throw dirt upon the reputation of the fathers; 
that they should trample the profoundest convictions 
of such men in the dust; that they should scout as 
mere drivel the convictions that were deeper than the 
love of life, stronger than the fear of death; the con- 
victions that thrust them out, that sent them — the self- 



Harmony and Unity to be Restored. 255 

denying, soul-loving heralds of salvation — through the 
world? — convictions that made them and made the 
Church, and made us; convictions out of which, under 
God, sprang up as from a deep and well-nourished root 
our fair tree of Methodism, with its spreading branches, 
bearing the laity as fruit unto eternal life ! 

But alas, sir, what have we done ? If we have not 
denounced the whole tree as evil, we have, in our revo- 
lutionary zeal, girdled its governmental trunk with the 
battle-ax of "despotism;" we have thrown the stones 
of "hierarchy" at its branches; we have struck with a 
pick-ax cry of " popery," until the tap-root of this con- 
viction has been severed; nay, with gigantic effort we 
have uptorn the deep-rooted convictions of our fathers, 
shaken from the dry fibers nearly every particle of 
dust, (for has not one of our venerable leaders said, 
" No part of our Church government is inspired ? ") 
And in inverting our governmental tree we have 
planted the branches under the soil, with the roots in 
the air ! " Pastors, obey them that have the rule over 
you in the plan, and submit yourselves, for minorities 
are now in the place of the word ! ! ! " 

A recent philosophic writer of Methodism says, " the 
Church has made a grave departure ! " Departure ! 
So far as the theory of onr fathers was concerned, it 
has made a change of base from heaven to earth. 
According to the fathers, Christ appoints and in some 
sense inspires all true pastors, and commits the flock to 
their keeping — that is, for the teaching and governing 
of the Church. According to the dominant theory of 
to-day, the people are the source of power, and Christ 



256 Principles of Church Government. 

has little or nothing to do with Church government — 
" He is Head over all things to the Church " except in 
church government /// 

That it should have been deemed desirable that 
laymen should participate in the legislation of the 
Church Ave do not wonder. But that it should ever 
have been proffered or accepted on a principle that 
rides roughshod over the most sacred and profound 
convictions of our fathers is to me a matter of utter 
astonishment, especially as, in the light of the most 
authorative principles of legislative science and of the 
highest reaches of civilization and of fundamental Meth- 
odism, it was so absolutely, so utterly uncalled for. 

The two-house argument is at least American — in 
its foundations." Is it not fundamentally Method- 
istic also? Let us see. Our fathers never taught 
that pastors were lords — the absolute and irresponsi- 
ble dictators — of the Church. There were, sir, at an 
infinite remove from such a position. John Wesley 
can speak for them all. " Is mutual consent" asks the 
founder of Methodism, " absolutely necessary between 
the pastor and the flock?" His answer is: "No 
question. I cannot guide any soul unless he consent 
to be guided by me ; neither can any soul force me to 
guide him if I consent not. Does the ceasing of this 
consent on either side dissolve the relation ? It must, 
in the very nature of things. If a man no longer con- 
sent to be guided by me ; I am no longer his guide, I 
am free. If one will not guide me any longer, I am 
free to seek one who will." * 

* Stevens's History of Methodism, vol. i, p. 313. 



Harmony and Unity to be Restored. 257 

That is it. In the judgment of our fathers the 
Christian Church was a purely voluntary association, in 
which pastors and people were perfectly free to follow 
their own convictions as the loving, devoted servants of 
Christ and of each other, but each in the functions as- 
signed by the Master. The governing function of the pas- 
torate was simply the ministry of service, not of domi- 
nation. It implied the freest and fullest concurrence of 
the laity. And the specific functions of the stewards 
in the "ministry of tables," or of temporalities, as 
fully implied the general supervision or concurrence of 
the ministry of the word. 

Here, sir, in this most fundamental postulate of 
Wesleyan Church government, we have the broad, 
deep, and eternally abiding foundations for our two 
distinct and separate, yet concurring, houses of the 
Church, legislature. By placing the power of shaping 
all legislative measures of moral discipline in the 
Clerical Senate, on the one hand, or of the bills of 
finance — measures on the temporalities of the Church — 
in the House of Lay Representatives, on the other, and 
by giving the power of mutual concurrence, rejection, or 
amendment to each, we shall not only secure precisely 
that distribution of responsibilities in which our fathers 
so religiously believed, but, so far as legislation can 
do it, the highest degree of liberty, safety, peace, pros- 
perity, and power for the whole Church. 
17 



258 Principles of Chukch Government. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH TO BE EXEMPLIFIED. 
Sixth Argument in the Baltimore Speech. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, we beg leave to show 
that the division of this body into two distinct, separate 
and concurrent houses, each with its own initiative in 
special measures, will most fully accord with the struct- 
ure, specific functions, and precedents of the Church of 
the New Testament ScrijJtures, and thus not only honor 
our fathers, but Christ and his apostles, in whom they 
believe as the founders of the Church for all lands and 
all ages. 

The structure of the New Testament, or apostolic 
Church, was not simply a mechanical mass, an aggre- 
gation of individual Christians. It was an organism; 
a personality; the living " Body of Christ." In the 
distribution of specific functions to particular mem- 
bers of this organism, the triumph of the division 
of labor principle was never more complete; for the 
Holy Ghost was palpably, visibly present in the Church, 
" the self-same Spirit dividing to every man severally 
as he will; for as the body is one and hath many mem- 
bers, and all the members of that one body, being many, 
are one body, so also is Christ." " God hath set the 
members every one of them to the body as it hath 
pleased him." " Ye are the body of Christ and mem- 



The New Testament Church. 259 

bers in particular. And God hath set some in the 
Church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, 
teachers. Are all apostles ? Are all prophets ? Are 
all teachers?" Again it is written: " He gave some, 
apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; 
and some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the 
saints . . . for the edifying of the body of Christ : that 
we . . . may grow up into him in all things, which is 
the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly 
joined together and compacted by that ichich every joint 
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the 
measure of every part, maketh increase of the body 
unto the edifying of itself in love." Eph. iv, 8-16. 

" For as we have many members in one body, and 
all members have not the same office, so we, being many, 
are one body, and every one members one of another. 
Note the force of the apostolic logic: "Having then 
gifts differing according to the grace given to us, 
whether prophecy, let us prophecy according to the 
proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our min- 
istering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that 
exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it 
with simplicity; he that ruleth with diligence." Rom. 
xii, 6-8. Nothing here is generic ; every thing is 
specific. No Jacobinic leveling ; no atheistic com- 
munism, but a sublime personality — a mighty moral 
organism, the body of Christ; in which wondrous syn- 
thesis of " members in particular " every specific func- 
tion is to be performed by its own particular organ. 

Having established this fundamental doctrine of 
specicdties as inherent in the very structure of the primi- 



260 Principles of Church Government. 

tive Church, we proceed to show that the specialties 
most distinctly and authoritatively demarked from each 
other in the administrations of the early Church were 
precisely those with which in this discussion we have 
to do. All spiritual interests of the organism were 
grouped together by apostolic authority and placed 
under the special " Ministry of the Word." And all 
secular interests of the organism, were by that au- 
thority that had power " to bind or loose " in heaven, 
completely set apart from those spiritual interests and 
placed in special charge of the official laymen of the 
Church. 

" One of the first acts in the organization of the early 
Christian Church," says the distinguished Dr. Crooks, 
the general-in-chief of the lay movement, " was the 
separation of the temporal concerns from the spiritual 
work," quoting in proof of his statement a portion of 
the sixth chapter of Acts.* We beg leave to quote a 
little more in full from this most interesting chapter: 
" Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples 
unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave 
the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, 
look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full 
of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint 
over this business. But we will give ourselves continually 
to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the 
saying pleased the whole multitude." (It was a popular 
doctrine then, and ought to be so now.) "And they 
chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, 
and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, 
* Methodist, May 1, 1875. 



The New Testament Church. 261 

and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; 
whom they set before the apostles: and when they had 
prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word 
of God increased; and the number of the disciples mul- 
tiplied in Jerusalem greatly." Acts vi, 2-7. 

That these " seven" were laymen at the time of their 
appointment is evident from the fact that they were 
not of the number of those who said, " It is not reason 
that we should leave the word of God to serve tables " 
— to which latter service the seven were expressly ap- 
pointed. 

Dr. Whedon, in the Quarterly for January, 1867, in 
speaking of the "seven deacons" in the Book of Acts, 
says, " They are never so called in the book itself;" and 
Dean Alford says, "The title of deacons is nowhere ap- 
plied to these seven in Scripture, nor does the word 
occur in Acts at all " (in loco). 

Wesley says: "Their proper office was to take care 
of the poor; and when some of them afterward preached 
the Gospel they did it not by virtue of their deacon- 
ship, but by another commission — that of evangelists, 
which they probably received, but after they were ap- 
pointed deacons ; " and adds, " It is not unlikely that 
others were chosen deacons or stewards in their room" 
{hi loco). " Another commission I '" Wesley regarded 
these seven stewards as divinely "commissioned" to 
the department of temporalities in the Church of God. 
What else could be the meaning of this solemn ordina- 
tion served by apostolic hands, the first recorded in the 
New Testament ? " The powers that be are ordained 
of God." The powers of the people and of the magis- 



262 Principles of Church Government. 

trate in the State are ordained of God. So in the or- 
ganism of the Church. " The powers " of the "official 
laity, and 'the powers'' of the ministry of the word 
'are ordained of God."' 

Allow me to pause just here a moment to ascertain 
the origin and significance of this ordination service. 
" And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on 
them " — a form that was not only used by the apostles 
in the appointment of these official laymen to the re- 
sponsible charge of the temporal interests in the Church, 
but also in the appointment of the ministers of the 
word to the spiritual oversight of the Church. It also 
was ordered or ordained of God. It was not from " the 
provincial customs of the Jews;" it was "instituted 
long before the Jews reached their provinces;" not 
from " the ceremonials of the synagogue ; " it was be- 
fore the synagogue was. It was "commanded" on the 
day that Moses, knowing that he was soon to go hence, 
besought: Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all 
flesh, set a man over the congregation, who may go in 
and out before them, and who may lead them out and 
bring them in, that the congregation of the Lord be 
not as sheep which have no shepherd. And the Lord 
said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a 
man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon 
him; and set him before Eleazar, the priest, and before 
all the congregation; and give him a charge in their 
sight. And thou shalt put some of thine honor (literally, 
authority) upon him, that all the congregation may be 
obedient. And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, 
"who shall ask counsel for him (Joshua) after the judg- 



The New Testament Chukch. 263 

ment of Urim before the Lord. At his word (the word 
of the Lord revealed through the priest) shall thej go 
out, and at his word shall they come in, both he (Joshua) 
and all the children of Israel, even all the congregation. 
And Moses did as the Lord commanded him. And he 
took Joshua and set him before the congregation, and 
he laid his hands upon him, as the Lord commanded by 
the hands of Moses. Num. xxvii, 16-23. 

Here we have, cleaving like a bolt of lightning the 
clouds and fog-banks of modern "exposition," the 
sharp, clear, and incisive statement of the divine origin 
and God-given significance of this most impressive ordi- 
nation service — the conveyance of authority derived from 
God, by the scriptural rulers of the Church, to their success- 
ors through the laying on of hands and the concurrence 
of the whole congregation. As Moses, himself directly 
called of God, ordained his successor by divine com- 
mand, conveyed to him the authority he himself had 
derived immediately from God, so the " twelve," directly 
commissioned by the great Head of the Church to bind 
or loose on earth and in heaven, conveyed through this 
divinely instituted ceremonial, to their successors in 
the specific offices which God had set by them in the 
Church, the authority which they had immediately 
derived from Christ. 

The authority in the temporalities of the Church the 
divinely inspired apostles conveyed in this most solemn, 
impressive, and divinely authorized ceremonial to the 
seven official laymen, laymen elected by "the multitude 
of the disciples," and set apart from the ministers of 
the word by apostolic hands as a distinct and separate 



264 Principles of Church Government. 

bureau or department of finance and temporalities in 
the Church of God. 

And, sir, as these inspired men declare that this dis- 
tinction and separation of temporalities from the minis- 
trations of the word are grounded on the principles of 
Ci reason " — of absolute and eternal reason — we can but 
regard their authoritative charge as obligatory upon 
the chosen representatives of the laity so long as there 
are in the Church of God secular interests demanding 
attention, in distinction from those spiritual concerns 
especially committed to the ministry of the word. 
And, so long as these secular interests remain in the 
organism, just so long will the authority of the word 
and of external reason "order" that laymen shall 
take responsible charge of the ministrations of finance 
in every society, in every Annual Conference, in 
every General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and in every society and every assembly of 
every Church on the planet under the authority of 
Christ. 

That the .ministry of the word was set apart by 
divine authority, through this divinely instituted form, 
to the distinct and separate work of teaching and gov- 
erning in the Church, no critical scholar of the New 
Testament could ever successfully deny. 

" The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and 
Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And 
when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands 
upon them, they sent them away. So they, being sent 
forth by the Holy Ghost, departed," not upon an apos- 
tolic, but an episcopal tour, " preaching the Word " — 



The New Testament Church. 265 

" confirming the souls of the disciples," and " ordaining 
(cheirotonia) them elders in every Church." Acts xiv, 
22, 23. 

As to the form of this ordination, Clarke says: "I 
believe the simple truth to be this, that in ancient times 
the people chose by the cheirotonia (lifting up of hands) 
their spiritual pastor; and the rulers of the Church, 
whether apostles or others, appointed that person to 
his office by the cheirothesia, or imposition of hands" 
(in loco). 

Allow us now to inquire as to the nature and extent 
of this authority thus conveyed to pastors elected by the 
people to an office ordained of God. Is it simply exec- 
utive ? What is commanded in God's word ? 

1. That the pastoral ministry, known indiscriminately 
as pastors, teachers, bishops, or presbyters, etc., shall 
take the general oversight of the whole Church, which 
oversight is to extend to temporalities only so far as 
relates to the " appointment " of devout and competent 
laymen, elected by the Church to take responsible charge 
of that "business," while they themselves are to give 
themselves to prayer and to things pertaining to the 
"ministry of the word." 

Peter, to whom " the keys of doctrine and discipline " 
were especially given, writes : " The elders which are 
among you I exhort, who also am an elder, and a wit- 
ness of the sufferings of Christ. Feed the flock of God 
which is among you, . . . taking the oversight thereof." 
1 Pet. v, 1, 2. 

The word rendered "feed," and afterward explained 
as "taking the oversight," is noiuavare (poimanate) a 



266 Principles of Church Government. 

form of the verb iroiuatvo) (poimaino), the same term 
employed by the Saviour in his address to Peter and 
the apostles when he said in most positive command- 
ment, "Feed (noifiaive, poimaine) my sheep." John 
xxi, 16. What is the signification of the term? Does 
it mean that a pastor, a shepherd, is simply the execu- 
tive officer of his flock, their creature, to do their bid- 
ding? Its use in the sacred Scriptures themselves 
shall determine this for us. It occurs eleven times in 
the New Testament, but only once with its literal 
meaning, "a servant feeding cattle. 1 ' Five times it 
signifies the rule of Christ in the world, in such texts 
as, " Out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule 
(TTOLjiavel, poimanei) my people Israel " (Matt, ii, 6) ; 
"He shall rule (Troifiavel, poimanei) them*' (all nations), 
etc. Rev. xix, 15. Fourtime^ it is applied to the pas- 
toral office, in such texts as Christ's charge to Peter, 
"Feed (iroiuaive, poimaine) my sheep;" and in Peter's 
charge to the elders, " Feed {noifiavare, poimanate) the 
flock of God, . . . taking the oversight thereof; " and 
Paul's charge to the elders at Miletus, "Take heed 
therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, 
to feed (jTotfiaiveiv, poimainein) the Church of God," 
etc. Acts xx, 28. Simply an "executive officer" of 
the flock of Christ ! As reasonably say that the 
apx i7TOL ! J ' evoc (orchipoimenos), or "chief Shepherd," 
" head over all things to the Church," was simply the 
"chief executive." In Heb. xiii, 20, he is called "the 
great Shepherd (nolfieva, poimena) of the sheep." In 
1 Pet. ii, 25, " The Shepherd {-noifieva, poimena) and 



The New Testament Church. LC7 

c 

Bishop of your souls." And yet this is the identical 
term employed by the Scriptures in relation to pastors. 
"And he gave some pastors (iroL/jLevac, poimenas) and 
teachers." Who can prove that these iroLfievec (poi- 
menes) were not the " masters of assemblies given from 
one shepherd" (nol[ieva, poimena) ? Eccl. xii, 11. 

Again, look at the term 7tpoio~r\\ii (proistami), to go 
before, to direct, to rule, to govern. It is applied in 
several instances to parental or family government. 
" A bishop must be blameless, . . . one that ruleth 
(rrpoiord^Evov, proistamenon) well his own house, hav- 
ing his children in subjection under him ; for if a man 
know not how to rule (irpooT7]vai, prostanai) his own 
house, how shall he take care of the church of God ? " 
1 Tim. iii, 2, 4, 5. And again, of the deacons, in 
verse 12, "Ruling (jrpoioTaiievoi , proistamenoi) their 
children and their own houses well." Does parental 
government imply executive power alone ? And yet 
this term, TTpo'ioTTjfit {proi stand), is precisely the one 
selected by the Holy Ghost to set forth the rule of the 
TTpeofivTepoi (presbuteroi) : "Know them which labor 
among you and are over you {jipolaraiievovc, proistame- 
nous) in the Lord." 1 Thess. v, 12. "Let the elders 
that rule (rrpoearore^ proestotes) well be counted wor- 
thy of double honor, especially {jidliara, malista, most 
of all) they who labor (Komtivrec, kopiontes) from Komdo) 
(kopiao), to be tired, to grow weary, to work hard, to 
toil in word and doctrine."* 1 Tim. v, 17. "He that 

* Dr. Strong, in his invaluable Encyclopaedia (art. " Elder "), says : 
" For a luminous statement of the whole subject of lay eldership, with 
a conclusive proof that there is no trace of it in the New Testament, 



268 Principles of Church Government. 

ruleth (TTpoLorafMevog, proistamenos) with diligence." 
Rom. xii, 8. In the presence of such scriptural defini- 
tions of the term, what warrant has any man for saying 
that this "ruling " (Trgoioraiievoc, proistamenoi) involves 
simply the executive function, excluding the making of 
" needful rules and regulations" for the government of 
the Church of God ? The term agoumenoi is also sug- 
gestive. 

2. Obedience on the part of the laity of the Church 
is commanded to these pastoral rulers (nyovfievol, agou- 
menoi) in the name of God. What are they ? Simply 
the executive, to do the will of the people ? Then the 
command should have reversed the terms, so as to read, 
"Pastors, obey your people in all things, for majorities 
are to you in place of the word." "Pastors, obey 
them that have the rule over you," for they are the 
source of authority, the origin of power in the Church 
of God. Scarcely good Scripture, however flattering 
to democratic pride. What are the rjyovfievoi {agou- 
menoi) of Scripture ? " Out of thee shall come a Gov- 
ernor (rjyovfievog, ayoumenos), that shall rule my pople 
Israel." Matt, ii, 6. " He made him governor (rjyov- 
(jlevov, agotimenon) over Egypt and all his house." 
Acts vii, 10. Simply an executive? "And Pharaoh 
said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath showed 
thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as 
thou art : thou shalt be over my house, and accord- 
ing unto thy word (the legislative) shall all my 
people be ruled : only in the throne (power) will I be 

see Dr. Hitchcock's art., Presbyterian Review, 1868." See, also, 
Dexter on Congregationalism, pp. 110-120. 



The New Testament Chukch. 269 

greater than thou. . . . Without thee shall no man lift 
up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt." Gen. xli, 39, 
40, 44. 

Now, when applied to pastors, who has the scriptural 
warrant to say that the term is restricted solely to ex- 
ecutive functions in carrying out the will of majorities ? 
" Remember them which have the rule over you (rjyov- 
[tevoyv, agoumenon), who have spoken unto you the word 
of God." Heb. xiii, 7. " Obey them that have the 
rule over you (nyovfievoic, agoumenois), and submit 
yourselves : for they watch for your souls, as they that 
must give account." Verse 17. "His blood will I 
require at the watchmarCs hand. So thou, O son of 
man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of 
Israel." Ezek. xxxiii, 6, 7. " Woe be to the shepherds 
of Israel. ... O ye shepherds, hear the word of the 
Lord. . . . Behold, I am against the shepherds ; and / 
will require my flock at their hand." Ezek. xxxiv, 
2, 9, 10. 

Is it possible that God could call men to stand so 
close to a woe of failure that darkens an eternity, and 
at the same time allow a majority of the flock for 
which he is held responsible to overrule his conscience 
and judgment as to the best ways and means for secur- 
ing their spiritual and eternal well-being ? Is it possi- 
ble that the laity of any Church should be so frenzied, 
so intoxicated with the love of power, so heartless, as 
to send a man up to a position of such responsibilities — 
a position around which the heaviest storm-clouds of 
the divine fury are shaken out, and yet so bind him 
with the withes of majorities that he should not be free 



270 Principles of Church Government. 

to meet these responsibilities ? As surely as there is a 
divine call to the Christian ministry to take responsible 
charge of the flock of Christ, so certainly do reason, 
conscience, and the word of God agree in laying upon 
that ministry especial responsibility in shaping the 
legislation of the Church in relation to those interests 
for which pastors must especially answer, on pain of 
eternal death. 

As a bar to this scriptural logic, it is asserted that 
the precedent of the first council is directly against it ; 
that the laity sat and deliberated with the apostles 
and elders without distinction or demarkation of 
powers ; enacting and signing the first ecclesiastical 
decrees touching the doctrines and moral discipline 
of the Church as one body. It is claimed that "the 
laity, as the underwriters of these decrees, were in the 
bond." 

As that first council of the Church was summoned 
and presided over by the inspired apostles and as a 
precedent must be binding in every principle illustrated 
by it upon all in the same circumstances for all time, 
the objection is entitled to the most candid and careful 
consideration. The accepted version,* we are sorry to 
say, makes a point against us ; sorry not only because 
it contradicts the context, but because it has dark- 
ened a very clear case and led some of the very best 

* The Revised Version, which was not issued when Dr. Perrine de- 
livered this speech, reads as follows: "And they wrote thus by them, 
The apostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren which are of 
the Gentiles in Antioch and S} r ria and Cilicia, greeting," etc. Acts 
xv, 23. — Editor. 



The New Testament Church. 271 

of men astray. An examination of the original Greek 
text, however, will correct all misapprehensions and 
lead us to the mind of the Spirit, to the authoritative 
word. 

In our version Acts xv, 23, reads as follows: " And 
they wrote letters by them after this manner ; The 
apostles (ol clttootoXoi, hoi apostoloi) and elders (Kai 
ol Vp£(Tj3urepoi, kai hoi presbuteroi) and brethren (ttai ol 
adeh<j>oi, kai hoi adelphoi) send greeting," etc. 

But Griesbach marks this last Kai ol in his critique 
upon the text as " doubtful." Lachman throws it out 
altogether. Irenseus, in quoting the text in the second 
century, omits it, making brethren, of course, in appo- 
sition with Trpeo(3vTeooi (presbuteroi), or elders. Dean 
Alford, in his great work on the Greek Testament, in 
three volumes, says: " The received version inserts Kai 
ol (kai hoi) before adeX&ol (adelphoi)', with the Codex 
Basiliensis of the eighth century, Codex Wolfir of the 
ninth century, Codex Regis Parisiensis of the eighth 
century; also in the latest so-called corrections of the 
Sinaiticus, as Tischendorf says, some centuries later 
than the original scribe." . . . But the Kai ol (kai hoi) 
is omitted by the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth 
century, Codex Vaticanus of the fourth century, Co- 
dex Ephsemi, " the purest example of the Alexandrine 
text," of the fifth century, Codex Bezse of the fifth 
or sixth century, and Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth 
century. 

Tischendorf, in his English Testament, says in a foot- 
note: "The Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrine MSS. 
omit " and " (Kai ol) before " brethren." And to indi- 



272 Principles of Church Government. 

cate the value of these three MSS. says: " These three 
31SS. undoubtedly stand at the head of all the ancient- 
copies of the JVetv Testament, and it is by their standard 
that both the early editions of the Greek text and modem 
versions are to be compared and corrected" So Alford, 
in his English Testament, correctly and appropriately 
gives the exact and literal rendering as follows: "And 
they wrote letters by them after this manner, The 
apostles and brethren which are elders send greeting 
unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch 
and Syria and Cilicia." Alford also says in his notes to 
the Greek text: "The omission of nai oi before adekfyol, 
(adelphoi), as in all the first MSS., as Neander observes, 
can hardly have been occasioned by hierarchical consid- 
erations, seeing it occurs as early as Irenaeus, and that 
it would be equally strong against hierarchical views 
to call the presbyters adelphoi, or brethren." We like 
that. We believe that the presbyters are of the people, 
and with the people, and for the people, but with their 
special responsibilities. Now glance through the whole 
narrative and note how perfectly this original text har- 
monizes with the context throughout. 

1. To whom was this appeal from Antioch made? 
Verse 2 answers, "Unto the apostles and elders" at 
Jerusalem. 

2. Who came together to hear the appeal ? Verse 6 
says: "And the apostles and elders came together for 
to consider of this matter." 

3. Who ordained the decrees ? Verse 4 of the next 
chapter answers: "And as they went through the cities 
they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were 



The New Testament Church. 273 

ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jeru- 
salem." 

Who signed the decrees ? The first exegetical schol- 
ars and annotators of the age answer: "The apostles 
and brethren which are elders" 

Now, sir, although the laity in great numbers may 
have filled every gallery and corridor of that council 
chamber, as they do here, with deeply interested lis- 
teners, and although some of " the sect of the Pharisees 
that believed " appeared before the council to urge, as 
accusers or appellants, their Jewish prejudices, yet, sir, 
it is in clearest evidence that during the entire time 
occupied in the discussion, enactment, and signing of 
these decrees, the laity were in reality without the bar 
of the clerical body, practically a distinct and separate 
house. 

But, sir, no sooner has the clerical house, or body of 
men upon whom the Holy Ghost had laid this especial 
responsibility, taken action, determining in the field of 
doctrine and moral discipline what ought to be done, 
than we find the laity, at least by implication, not only 
concurring with the legislative action of the clerical 
body by providing the necessary " ways and means," 
but we find them heartily uniting with the apostles 
and elders in carrying the decrees into effect. "Then 
pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole Church 
to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch." 
Verse 22. A purely administrative act, implying, 
of course, the concurrence of all the constitutional ele- 
ments, the distinctive, yet harmonious members of 

" the one body " of Christ. 
18 



274 Principles of Church Government. 

Thus, sir, in this brief study of the first great council 
of the Church, convened by inspired authority, we find 
at least the typical germs of that legislative science 
which, growing up in the unfolding wisdom of the 
ages, stands at length in the two perfectly distinct, 
separate, and concurrent houses of the modern legisla- 
ture, not only as a monument of the world's experience 
— that experience which corrects the errors of mere 
theory, and at once illustrates and enforces the eternal 
judgments of nature, but, sir, a monument as well to 
the wisdom of Him whom we most devoutly believe to 
be worthy to be " head over all things to the Church," 
even in Church government. 

Editor's Note. 

The foregoing speech by Dr. Perrine produced a profound impres- 
sion upon the minds of its readers. Many leading members of the 
General Conference gave it careful attention, and were convinced that 
it outlined the safest policy for the Church to jursue. Bishop Ames 
said to Drs. G. B. Jocelyn and D. F. Barnes: "Perrine has done the 
best thing of the General Conference so far. His theory of the con- 
stitution is historically and philosophically correct." Judge G. G. 
Reynolds said: "I have just finished reading your speech ; it is mag- 
nificent, and I think I can say I indorse every position in it." Dr. 
J. M. Buckley said: "Perrine, I have read every word; I believe 
every word of it; you have the facts and principles." General 
Clinton B. Fisk, in a note dated Baltimore, May 27, 1876, said: "I 
wish to thank you again for your able defense of the liberties of the 
Church." G. J. Ferry, chairman of the Committee on L;\y Delega- 
tion, said: "Perrine, you are right; you are going to succeed; the 
best men in the Church are with you." Another delegate said: 
"That speech will shape the Church of the future." One of the 
bishops declared, "It is much easier to speak slightingly of Perrine 



The New. Testament Church. 275 

than to answer him." A distinguished General Conference officer 
affirmed that "Perrine stock is coming up; all over the country the 
first men in the Church are with him." The late Dr. E. Wentworth 
gave this encouraging word : " You are making progress. It took 
Wilberforce thirty j^ears to convert the British Parliament." A great 
many other opinions of like import could be quoted. The Methodist 
of May 13, 1876, observed: "On the first day of the session Dr. W. 
H. Perrine, of Michigan, obtained the ear of the General Conference 
for his resolution to divide that body into two houses. The main 
line of argument in his speech is that such division is a necessary 
safeguard of liberty. In print, in the Daily Advocate, his speech is 
bright, witty, and strong. His quotations from the writers of the 
Church setting up the doctrine of supreme and practically unlimited 
powers in the General. Conference were well taken, and his allusion 
to ' this bridge of fog over which the whole lay representation move- 
ment passed,' makes a striking conclusion to the quotations." The 
Michigan Christian Advocate, after expressing regret for inability to 
publish the speech entire, said : " It was an able argument upon the 
necessity of guarding constitutional rights against the aggressions of 
legislative assumption, an object which he sought to accomplish by 
the division of the General Conference into two branches, lay and cleri- 
cal." Rev. P. M. Searles, of Ohio, writing to a member of the Mich- 
igan Conference in 1819, said: "Dr. Perrine's speech at the last 
General Conference impressed me deeply. I hope his views may 
prevail, and that he may have the op ortunity of being heard again 
at the next General Conference." Rev. George B. Fairhead, of New 
York, also wrote: "I have just finished a reperusal of Dr. Perrine's 
arguments on the two houses. His arguments are solid rock of the 
granite order. He has made a masterly presentation of the question 
of Church government, such as I have never before seen equaled. 
His arguments compel deliberation, and force on the judgment the 
conviction that he is unanswerable." A leading thinker and speaker 
in several General Conferences expressed himself as follows : " I es- 
teem Dr. Perrine highly, and believe him to be a man of great ability 
and unusual acquirements. On the fundamental importance of the 
two-house idea I entirely agree with him, and believe the Church 



276 Principles of Church Government. 

will some day see the wisdom of it. . . . My opinion is that at the 
end of the last General Conference he was generally conceded to be 
an able and learned man whose words were weighty. I think him a 
man to be adhered to, and if I were a member of your Conference I 
should vote for him for the third term." It is scarcely necessary to 
add that the "third term " was given to him by the suffrages of a 
majority of his brethren. 



General Conference Re-organization. 277 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

GENERAL CONFERENCE RE-ORGANIZATLON. 



Comparative Tables. 



ONE OR T^VTO HOUSES. 

Fact is of more value than fiction. Faithfulness is better than 
flattery, and self-knowledge than self-complacency. A great Church, 
like a great soul, can afford to be severe only with itself. " We 
began," says John Wesley, "by denouncing ourselves." It can afford 
to be more than inflexibly just; it may be chivalrously generous in 
its relations to others. It cannot afford to be s'ow to acknowledge 
merit or to emulate excellence wherever found. Believing that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has no interest incompatible with the 
fullest exhibit of facts in the broad field of comparative ecclesiasticism, 
and especially that no intelligent lover of our Zion could consent that 
in any department of church interest perfection of methods should 
long be found only outside of "Methodism," we have ventured 
upon a comparison, not altogether in our favor, between the two 
legislative systems of the two leading episcopalian Churches in 
America — between the General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church and the General Convention of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church. 

That the relative merits of the One and the Two House Svstems 
may be the more clearly seen and forcibly felt, we shall arrange their 
respective facts in parallel columns side by side. 



278 Principles of Church Government. 



EXHIBIT No. 1. 

Name, Place, Date, and Length of Session. 
THE QUADRENNIAL SESSION 

OF THE 

Genekal Conference 



Methodist Episcopal Church, 

HELD IN 

BALTIMORE, Md., 
From May 1 to May 31, 1876. 

(Exclusive of Sundays.) 

27 ID^-YS. 



THE TRIENNIAL SESSI01 

OF THE 

General Convention 



OF THE 

Protestant Episcopal Church, 

HEI.0 IN 

BOSTON, Mass., 
From Oct. 3 to Oct. 25, 1877. 

(Exclusive of Sundays.) 



EXHIBIT No. 2. 

Constitution and Size. 
The General Conference The General Convention 



is composed of a Single House, in which 
Ministerial and Lay Delegates sit and 
deliberate together as one body and 
vote together or separately according 
to the option of either order. 

Ministerial Delegates 222 

Lay Delegates 133 

Total 355 



is composed of Two Distinct, Separate, 
and Concurrent Houses: a House of 
Bishops, deliberating and voting by it- 
self, and a House of Deputies, in which 
Clerical and Lay Deputies sit and de- 
liberate together and vote together or 
separately according to the option of 
either order. 

Clerical Deputies 192 

Lay Deputies 188 

Bishops 60 

Total 440 



EXHIBIT No. 3. 

First Approximate Test of the Amount of Work Done in each House 
respectively. 

The sessions of 
the House of 
Bishops are Se- 
cret. That thev 
were not idle, 
however will 
appear from the 
following : 



The Proceedings of the 
General Conference, as pub- 
lished in the columns of the 

Daily Christian Advocate, 

Fraternal Ad- 



exclusive of 
dresses : 

271,418 WORDS. 



The Proceedings of the 
House of Deputies, as pub- 
lished in the columns of the 

Daily Churchman, 

exclusive of Fraternal Ad- 
dresses : 

500,395 WORDS. 



FXHIBIT No. 4. 

Note.— In the table below, the phrase " to act " is distinguished from that of 
"to enact" as scaffolding is from an edifice in building. "To act" relates 
exclusively to the temporary agencies, methods, interests, or convenience of 
the acting body itself, such as the admission of members to seats, granting 
leave of absence, the appointment or instruction of committees, votes of thanks. 



General Conference Re-organization. 279 

etc.; while, on the other hand, "to enact' 1 relates exclusively to permanent 
legislation for the whole Church. 

Further Approximate Tests op the Amount of Work Done, 



An Analysis of the Doings of Each House according to the Official Journals 
and Dailies respectively. 



To Act: 
Motions to act temporarily for the acting body itself 
Resolutions " " " " " " adopted 

Reports to act from standing committees adopted 

" " special " " 

Whole No. of forms "to act "for the body acting adopt'd 

To Enact : 

Motions to enact permanently for the good of the 

whole Church 

resolutions to enact permanently for the good of the 

whole Church adopted 

Reports to enact from standing committees adopted. 
" " special '* " . 

" adverse to enactment from stand'g com. adopt'd 
" u u t< S p eC i a i >•' " 

Whole No. forms "to enact" for the whole Church " 
Incidental and Privileged : 
Motions to make special order 

" " suspend the rules 

" " approve the minutes 

" " adjourn 

Supsidiary: 
Motions to lie on the table 

" " put the previous question 

" " postpone to a certain day 

'■ " commit or "refer" 

" " amend 

" " postpone indefinitely 

MISCELLANEOUS: 

Motions to take up from the table 

" " reconsider 

" " recommit 

Spfciai, : 
Motions to concur 

" " non-concur 

Messages sent 

" received 

Reports, Memorials, etc. : 
Memorials " referred " by motion or " under the rules 1 
Resolutions " '* " " " " " 

Reports " referred " to other committees 

Whole No. of reports received from committees 

" " " acted upon or accepted as final . 

" " " from standing committees not 

acted upon or suppressed 



875 
58 
12 
19 

404 



106 



r.co 

2 

145 

47§ 



185 



74 



5 

115 



182 
108 



375 



20 
17 

15 

13 

85 

37 

3 

34 
5 
6 

SS 
14 
90 

97 

39 
37 

12 
120 



137 120 



TUESDAY, MAY 2. 


MONDAY, MAY 1. 


Days of Month. 


Q 

H 

ss 

m 
a 

t- 

o 

o 

w 

a 
a 

H 


2. 


1. 


Days of . v ession. 


3 
go 

'B* 


5' £. 

HO 2 o 

« B "a 

|» <rca 

5.BJ p s " 

er-l CO 2 

rr-CO CD «■ 


Reports Intro- 
duced. 


£§o 


Laid over to be 
Printed. 


i 5 


®$ Is 

$% PCD 

CD >s p 

22. *< a 


Reports Dis- 
cussed. 


P® 
5- CO 


Off "^ 
2* g 


Reports made 
Special Order. 


cLp 

gl 

P.3 




Final Action on 
Reports. 


cb"2 


el- CD 

tr crq 

CO P 


Character of. 


1 


S- £0 

! § 

■ P< 


Reports Smoth- 
ered. 


Thursday, Oct 4. 


Wednesday, Oct. 3. 


Day. of Month. 


a 

o 
c 

CO 

o 

o 

a 

3 

co 


2. 


1. 


Days of Session. 


On tbe morning of the second day the pres- 
ident announced the standing committees, 
as follows: 

State of Church (S.C). Consecration of Bish- 
ops (C.B.). On Canons (C). Theological Semi- 
nary (T.S.). On Expenses (Ex.). Unfinished 
Business (U.B.). New Dioceses (N.D.). Amend- 
ment of Constitution (A.C.). Memorials of 
Deceased Members (Me ). Christian Educa- 
tion (C.Ed.). Domestic and Foreign Missions 
(DF.M.). Prayer Book (P.B.). Elections 
(EL). 


CD 

cf © 

5- 8 


Reports Intro- 
duced. 


►d cs)' 

CD P. 
CO 


Reports put on 
Calendar. 


1 S 

B 1 


Reports Dis- 
cussed. 


P. p 
co »5 

8 s 

CD £i 


Reports made 
Special Order. 


P. 

CD 
I 


Final Action on 
Reports. 


5' 

CO 

1 


Character of. 


Pi 


Repts. Smoth'd. 


On the morning of the second day the 
presiding bishop announced the stand- 
ing committees, as follows : 

New Dioceses (N.D.). Praver Book 
(P.B.) Consecration of Bishops (C.B.). 
Memorials (Me.). Theological Semi- 
nary (T.S.). Amendment of Constitu- 
tion (A.C.). On Canons (C). Unfin- 
ished Business (O.B.). Dispatch of Bus- 
i iness (D.B.) Christian Education 
1 (C.Ed.). Domestic Missions (D.M.). 
Foreign Missions (F.M ). 


p 

CD <KJ 


Reports Intro- 
duced. 


o 
a 

CO 

o 
SO 


B CD 


Reports Laid 
on Table. 


CO «J 
CD 

o a 


Reports Dis- 
cussed. 


1 1 


Reports made 
Special Order. 


o 
o 


Final Action on 
Reports. 




Character of. 


CO 


Repts. Smoth'tl. 



SAT., 


MAY 


6 




Fr 


IDAY, 


MAY 


5. 


Thitrs., 


MAY 4. 


Wed 


, MAY 3. 


6. 


5. 4. 


3. 






















On the th 
committees 
Com. on E 
Com. on I 
Com . on M 

On the tour 
Com. on Edn 
Com. on Rev 
Com on S.-sc 

Com on Free 
Com. on Chu 
Com. on Stat 
Com. on Boo] 
Com. on Boi 
vided for 












— 




























th day, morning session : 

cation (Ed.). Accepted. 

isals (R.). 

hools and Tracts (S.S.T.). " 

Afternoon Session: 

dmen (F.). Accepted. 

rch Extension (C E.). " 

=> of the Church (S.C.). 

j Concern (B.C.). 

indaries (B.), organization pro- 

by law. 


52. 
o' 

P 

co 
g 


rd day 
' report 
piscopa 
ineranc 






















J ft CD 






















' So 

S3. 






















ig standing 
lization : " 
Accepted. 














: 








Tuesday, Oct. 9.1 Monda\,Oct. 8. 


Sat., Oct. 6. j Friday, Oct. 5. 


6. 5. 


4. ! 3. 


p 






: b 





^ 


»: ►: 
pi b: 

jf ■ to" 


*■• to 










r. 


i P9~ 




: 1 H 

: : P: 










: *ti 
: P 3 






: t>: 
: P: 














c. 

o. 




















; 


>: : 






>: : : 

D| j j 

+: : : 


an* 






> 

p 








H ■ 

p: : 

_ M i : 


: i H 

: : p: 






































' j ; ; ; 

1 : : : 














b 


















: PPS 
















H 




: : : 














j w«£ 










































CD 
to 


P: 
co: 


-3: oj 


p 

en 




: P: 


: : P 


p 








: 
• 






• • • 
: : : 


"> : : : P 








<i: os 












"3 














p 


■> : ; : 




p- 

co: 


O 
Cn 




: P: 
: «*•: 


: ; 


> 
p 






b 


: 




p 

tO 


K: : 


: : : : P 








































CD 


co: 


l\ p 
-«: os 






: P: 


: : p 
: : oj 








b 










: : : : <"> 


Si 


M: 


*j: H 








: : ► 
: : P 








> 

u 










pi i i 


•|: H 















































Wed. 


MAY 10. 


TUES. 


MAY 9. 




MON. 




May 8. 


Days of Month. 


O 
m 

S5 

H 
3J 


9. 


8. 


Days of Session. 








Reports Intro- 
duced. 










Laid over to be 
Printed. 








Reports Dis- 
cussed. 








Reports made 
Special Older. 


O 










Final Action on 
Reports. 


d 








Character of. 








Reports Smoth- 
ered. 


Fri., 


Oct. 12. 




Ocx. 11. 


j 


Ved. 


( 

7 


)CT. 10. 


Days of Month. 


o 

I \ 

H 

% 1 


9. 8. 




. 


Days of Se-sion. 






: P 












PP 


• cc|>. 
: P P 










N.D.2 

N.D.3 

C.6 

El. 3 


Reports Intro- 
duced. 






: p 
: *° 












PP 

00-5 






> 

■a 


















Reports put on 
Calendar. 












oP 


32 

PP 




ddP 






p 


> 

p 


oP 


2 
3 

to 


Reports Dis- 
cussed. 
























.3.2 

PP 

Wfc3 




— 


















Reports made 
Special Order. 


















dd 
ccto 






■ cc 

: P 


p 






Hp: 




Final Action on 
Reports. 


















Hfei 






: - H 




H 






&*• 




Character of. 










































Repts. Smoth'd. 


od: 

to»o : 


Me. 3 
Me. 4 
U.B.I 
C.12 








k: 


d-3 

gCD 

2 co 


p 


- 


p 


p; 


3 




Reports Intro- 
duced. 


c 

v. 

m 
3 


F.M.I F.M.I 1 

N.D.2 N.U. 2 

A.C.2 iA.C.2 

1 1 


C 














: : 












: 


Reports Laid on 
Table. 


Me. 3 
Me. 4 
U.B.I 
C.12 


3 






■* d^ 


p 






p: 


Reports Dis- 
cns-ed. 




































Reports made 
Special Order. 




a?? \p 










c 


o 


P: : 


Final Action on 
Reports. 


d" : 




So" • H 










o 
B 












Character of. 
















































Repts. Smoth'd. 



Monday, May 15 


1 SATURDAY, 


May 13. 


! FRIDA 


Y, B 

11. 


1AY 12. 


|TH., MAY 11. 


13. 12. 




io. 




P: 


ft* 






!: P 

j: P 
1: &s 


: Pi P: i 

i P: P: : 
: **: »-'.' : 




1: 












1 : : : 










pp 












|: 
1: 












| : : : 
1 : :•: 








Pi 

Hi 








i P 
: P 
: « 


P: P: : 
















1 : : : 


it 


— 


































Pi 
Pi 








I: P 

: P 

: co 


P: W; • 

Pi P: : 

n>: i -1 : : 
























H: 








i F 






























































Wed., Oct. it. 
13. 


Tuesday, Oct. 16. 


Monday, Oct. 15 


Sat., Oct. 13. 


12. 


11. 


10. 


*o 


p. 

a: 


►3; hd; !>>• 
CD; Oj; Op! 

M : **■: *-S 


3 i PP 

ft • oo~J 


i : i > 

•Mr 

; ; ; « 


* i p. q C 

3 ; ; QC -J 


s^oocoo: oi^^^t- 

• OiOi^-cci*. i-i- • • * 
OS _• cncocc 


p: : 


p- 














: P 
': S 






: : f*»: : 
i i pi i 

. ■ GO- • 


> 
p 

C5 


i P. c 


: : q: 

: i 'h- 1 ' 


■ti: : 
»: i 




Pi 
o: 




rail; 


o: 

Pi 


cq: tdi ppi 

M i ^ : PSi 


i .^o 
i p'^ 


i P": - c 

: **■: « 


r. p: p; 




i o^^.^ 

'• MP— C71 




cci ; 
pi i 


: i > 

i i P 

: ■ co 
• . + 






































Hi 


p: 
P: 

U: 


Hi: jdi >> t 
u> : . to: PP-" 
^: **; i-io 


J; ha 


; i i > 

: : : c 
• • • « 


r. • : o- 

5. . -q 


• OiCJi 


i pi 


p 

6n 




to: : 


i 1 .► 

• • p 

: : co 


a! h ^h 

' : U: Od. c 


3 ; o- M 


i i i {* 
: : i t 




HH' M 
■ ' p 


IK: 

; pi 


p 




pi i 


: i T 






























: : Ppcoppo; : i 
: : J^cVsjk'sb: i i 


■ Mag. • • • 


)i ooo.^ 
.: UhUc 


i- : 








oNPP 

en* • • 
iccojn: 


i i p 

i : * 


o: : 
co; : 










->h 
oP", 

eo 




















0: : 

N; i 




C.22 
C.23 
C.24 
C.25 
C.26 
C.27 
DM.4 
C.12 








k 


; - H 

i P° 


a 


N3COtC 


&? 


Q: > 

CO. • 


•: H 








pi 

Co- 




:.*!::: 
• k" .' : 




CO 






i P° 










A.C.3 
C.2 
C.22 
C.23 
C.24 
C.25 
C.26 
C.27 

D.M.4 


• g*gg- • • 


ii pppi 


J3 

CO 




p 




oPPP 

Cn- • ■ 

tccotc 


; ; r 


oi ► 

KiP 


: : • ' • u - * o- ■ : 

• 


i > > 
■ LjHHH" HI? 
: p- • • p- • 


: up- : 


p_ 




. H 




• • pp 


i i t* 
: ' * 


p: p 


: : : 







































Thursday May 18. Wed., May 17 


Tuesday 


MAY 16. 


Days of Month. 


O 
z 

M 

73 

f 

Q 

g 

» ! 
I I 

• H j 


16. 1 15. ! 14. Days of Session. 


B. C. 4, 7 
B.C. 6 
Ed. 3 
Ep. 1, 2 


• Oslo- 
oo M - 


H.H 




. . . . I 
i i : : ip= 
• • • • c 
: : : : oi 


:::::: 




: Reports Tntro- 
: duced. 




~0 


F 
p 


fff: 
pop; 


£ 


MM 








Laid over to be 
i 1 Printed. 






CO 
Q 

OS 




I 1 s: ! i 


: : : IP 
: : : w 






: Reports Dis- 
: cussed. 










• ■ 




;;; • 

: : : : 






j Reports made 
Special Order. 






C3 
p 
OS 




::»::: 


:::|w 

: : : IP 
: : : » 






1 

Final Action on 
1 Reports. 

I Character of. 




CD 
O 






Hi i ! 


i i : H 










; ci ©* *** cc w h-i j^-j 




iiili 

i i i ! 

:: :|: 






1 

j Reports Smoth- 
ered. 


Saturday, Oct. 20. 


Fri., Oct. 19. 


Thursday, Oct. 18. ; Days of Month. 
14. i Days ofSe-sion 



a 
to 

a 


*g 

O 

T) 

a 
P 


16. 


15. 








1-1 OS** 




: : d : 
: : tz| : 

i : H| 


pop: i pi 

>*.<WtO- • P-i' 


: : >»[> 

: : P^^-i Reports Intro- 

i : bZu'4 duced - 








P: : i 

*o: ; '. 

os : : 








: P: : : : : 
. lo . . . . 
: os; : : : : 




Reports put on 
I Calendar. 


p 

OS 


QQOQ: og-^l 


: - Q i I- 

'• P: : 


: : u: 
^: ; q : 

a : : N: 


_,i ^^t^^ *ij^>- 
p: o-cp^c^-p- • 

k: b^k'-oo^Fg^^ 


: Reports Dis- 
| cussed. 






p 














: Reports made 
j Special Order. 


> 

p 

OS 


QQOQ: og-^H 


i : : : I 

'. '. '. '. < 


: : o : 
3: : hs : 

°: : ^: 


O: P- PPOO- P- ■ «| Final Action on 
^: SsFgJSoo^P 3 *?- • 'J Reports. 

: os — SS ! 


p 


F : > 
• • ' H: ■ • C 


r P 


: : : : t 


* : r° : 


H : .^qK^K^. 3 ;-^* ^j Character of. 
•' • ' • • * 1 


: 
















Repts. Smoth'd. 




>: : 

"3: i 


: : : H: : 

: : : cc! i 
: : : w ; : 


: u 

j ' s 
: os 


: : : j3: 
: : : cc: 
: : : i^: 


: : 0: 
i i k\ 


: Si i Si 

: ? : '. 9 : 

; -a; ; os; 


^ hc: 0' 

tcwcei k: : 
• • • . 00 

ci*.os- 


Repo 1 ts Intro- 
i duced. 




: 


















R' ports Laid on 
| Table. 




CO 

H 

a 

KB 

a 
1 


: 
• 


>: : 
■s: i 


: U: co: : 
: M : «: : 


: 
: P 

'■ OS 


i : : ^i 
: : : cc: 
. '. '. ^o'■ 


: : u: 


i £: i Si 


LLL: • P Reports Dis- 
• Wtd ": g»' cussed. 

o»*.os- 




: p: : : : 

j 5: : * : 














Reports mfide 
Special Order. 


: P: i 


i.oi i* : 
: '_: co: : 

• to- ■ • • 


: 
• s 

: OS 


: i : co! 
: : : to' 


r : t : 

i i N: 


i Si i g: 

: ? : : P : 

• -a* ; as; 


i p.*i 0; 

. cccc: ^: 

. • • . oo- 


Fi' al Action on 
Reports. 


: W: ■ 


j *i ^ i 


: - H 


: : : H: 


!Mi 


HIS 


i HH: 


si 


Character of. 

1 










: : 1 




: : : |: 






Repts. Smctlid. 



Tues., May 23. Monday, May 22. : Saturday, May 20. 




Friday 


MAY 


19 


T 


20. 19. 18. 




17 




■ 
1: 


oocom: 
• P. 00 *: 

. «s „- • 

: fe«+: 
: ffC: 
: PPP: 


■ J.J 

: Ph 

.' foi. 

• C^C? 

: Ft 
: P c 


• 


















Ep. 3 + 

It. 1, 2 

R. 9,10. 11 

S.S.T.1,2 

B.C. 8 + 




i 
j 














3? 


ft 


Si 

ool 

co' 


1: 












i i 


p 






r'trr 1 
DCC 


DO 


















p'p 


r 
p 


s 






: : t= 
: : P 
: : u 


]: 

i ; 








• ss.w ■ 
: ^o :- 

'. Oi' '. 

-3 • 


i: : 




























td: 
P: 

S: 


td 
p 


: 




























































: : t= 

: : *? 

'. '. ** 


: 

1: 
i: 








'. anffl ■ 






























•^p 


p 

o 








: : P 


: 










H: : 
































P 




p 






»: W: l _ I aQjn. Dr 
q: a: «*Qog 

• • co- • ^ 


: 
■ 








j |Pj 




Ep.3 
It. 2 
R. 9 + 
R. 10 
R. 11 
S.S.T.l 
























5000-^ 


THURS 


., Oct. 25. 
SO. 


Wed., Oct. 24. 


Tuesday, Oct. 23. 


MONI 


)AY, 
17 


Oct. 22. 


2 


19. 


18. 






5 

p 

3 

a 



a 

ED 
p 

1 

& 
« 

o 
p 
o 

n 

I 
» 
w 
& 

P 






: : c 
: : * 


: o- • 
. kbcw 

• CO- • 
00-1 




Hpppc 

" *. *. *. o. 
J3tCH-©«£ 


S. C. 3 

D.F.M.2 

D.F.M.3 

Ex. 1 

El. 11 

C.35 
C.36 

a 37 

C.38 


: ppppp 


Hop 




CO 


















pc 


: : 




P: : 
8: : 










pppp 

CO CO Co to 














MOSCOW W tore* 
©cointoi-'Osco* 


p 
8 


3** 

55 WW 

CO -a 


: r 
: S 


y pp': : 
£: '&&: : 


actppa 


• P 

: s 


M PPw 


: 

: Ohr) 

: 8S 










ppp-^i 
to to 1-1.0 : 

oo-aoo • 
00; 












: c 

'■ c 


3: 












: p 
: to 

: * 





























popppppc 


3 QQ.^ 

- co*>-WJ3 
. ~ co- • 


. : p^ppi : 


ppppp 
sssks 


: : MM 00 02 

: : m'^gg- 
: : coic 05 





►=1 








Mppp^ft 

' MtOI-lO* 

Soo-Qco. to 

W 00 


OH 


dp 


P* ' 


3 HH^ 

" ' PP 


: H>-HH: : 




: : SfHfe^H 
: : P* .°U" 




w 








? d" ' o.° 






































P 
o° - 

tbo 
|| 

( 

c 
p 
r 
n 
£ 

3 

c 

c 

€ 

c 

e 

c 



r 
Q 

r 


,1: 

: 












coco^. • 


: o 
: H 

• & 

: io 






D.B. 1 

C.35 
A. C. 5 
A.C.6 

Me. 8 
CB.l 








pppppp 


WpcW 

io-3 05 


















: o 
: H 
|: Ks 

i: o 
: M 

• D. 








: p 

: en 
























v. : 
W: : 
»: : 


d ; 








: : ptf: 

: ! ^Wi 
: . ioc"'- 


COCO^. q 




D.B. 1 

C.35 
A.C.5 
A.C.6 

Me. 8 
CB.l 
A.C.5 
A C.5 


M 

00 






pppppp 

co co co ceo: to 


ww 

-5 OS 


: 
















• * 

■ : 




no: 
























. 
: 

; 








: : pnd: 
i : §133: 


PP 

38 


*i: c 

g: t* 

: o 

m- is: 


> 

p 


WPO: wW te 






Oppppp 


ww 


; 

: 








: ! PP: 




IN 




p 


' Oo: * ' ' 






. . p. . . 


PP 


h : 




















b : 












: 































i Fki., May 26 




Thitr,, 


MAY 25. 


Wed. 




MAY 24. 




Pdysof Mcr-h. 


23. 




22. 21. iDays..ft*ess.on. 
















wco^H 

-5 


Pa 

go 


: : kg 

; i; J5 


g: & 2m«> 
-2: s»i u '^o 




Report? Intro- 
duced. 


: 












t H C H tr l tr l 
'9999 




: 1: F 


P: 


r: fff 
s : PPP 




Laid over to be 
Printed. 


M 

•+ 




p; ; 


5So 


C. E. 2 
Fr. 1 
Fr. 3 
Fr. 2 
It. 4 


Ed. 1 

R. 7 

R.8 

S.S.T.5 

S.S.T.6 


It. 1 

M.2 
M.3 
M.4 
M.5 


Reports Dis- 
cussed. 


































Reports made 
Special Order. 










P££ 




C. E. 2 
Fr. 1 
Fr. 3 
Fr. 2 


Ed. 1 

R. 7 
R.8 

S.S.T.5 
S.S.T.6 


It. 1 
M.2 
M.3 
M. 4 
M.5 


Final Action on 
Reports. 










KHfe 




HHHJS 


KMt" l WM 


• GO' 


Character of. 
















: : : H 
: : : P* 
: : : °° 


03 

J3fc 

-a 




MM 
p,p, 








Mt»: 




Reports Smoth- 
ered. 



























O 








1 


1 






^ 
$ 


3 

O 




: 


SI 
3 


8 


M 


> 


> 


H 


5' 
£L 
P^ 

0* 

s 

CO 


0- 
er 

ri 
3 

CO 




3 q 

p- B- 

2- a 

a> cd 
P P 

C P 

B B 

n cd 
•■« ►* 



1 11 

•s s 


2. 4 

to S" 


^A^, 


? 
3 


3 
0< 

s 

=» 
a 

b 
<} 

3 
I 


w ~ 




«^~ 


X 


w 


» 


Pd , 




H 






S3 
P B 

' 


CD 

sr c 

§ i 
s i 

! I 

D ^ 


CD 

•d 1 


S 

2. 

CD 

'3 
P. 

s- • 

p 

Ct> 
P 
CD 

M 

O 
O 
P 

9 


.8? < 

is" GO 

*£ 

s 

p. 



& 


3D 

s 

ia 

I 

1 


.0 

3 
O 

b 

3 

a. 

1 


| 

B 
3 

"J 
P. 

-0 

D 

s 


§ 
& 1 

( 


1 

"^ 

CB 

^.cn 
CD 

3| 

' El 
^2 


3 

1 

CB 

B 
Si 






M 
X 

•V 

f 

> 
1-3 

O 
25 

a 


CO 05 
g 1 

1 ? 

re "O 
Ct> 

a t 


1 

a 




3 




►1 











P 

pi 


1 

Pi 








s 

k5 








<T£ 






S 


cd' 










g 








O 








Pi 






s 


J° 










Pi 








*. 






























-1 

to TO 


























D 


Q 
a 


X 


CO K- 


to 


-* 


-* 




10 






» 







99 




a 


C3 


:z » 
























3 


P 


H 


.- CD 
O 
























<B 




SJ 


























b 


a 




: S 


to 
id 




to 


5> 


Ol 













M 


c 

CO 









00 
























a 


- 



































































CO 




-t 





OS 








c 


00 










• w 
























•a 






cd 































p 


























"" 





Wed., May 31. 


Tuesday, 


M 


AY 30. 


MON., 


May 29. 


SAT 


., 


MAY 27. 


27. 


26. 


25. 24. 


° 2 M 
Hi 

CB O CD 
CO a q. 

SI 

~l 

Pi 

§ 

g 


wta: 

wtO; 


: P. : 

i P: : 
: »: : 






— 


CO 

Q 






















& M HF° 
'_nP-0 

» - - ia 




















L.O. 
L.O. 
LO. 




L.O. 
L.O 
L.O. 










t-tr'rc- 1 
poop 


S.S.T.2 

S.S.T.4 

S.C.I 

B.C. 9 

B. 1 

B. 2 

B. 3 


">_! 03 "* cr. Ci tp OO ■(»• in W 










+; : : : 






















: cc: : 

: p: : 




S.S.T.2 

S.S.T.4 

S.C.I 

B.C. 9 

B.l 

B. 2 

B. 3 


M.e 

Ed. 5 
M.14 
Ed. 3 
Ed. 9 
Ep. 5 
Ep. 6 
It. 7 
R. 13 
B. C. 12 


top ssw co: : 
* Q Ce pi i 






p: : : : 


» 

pa 


H 

• 


o t> 

HH' HHHHH 

-3- • p- • • • ■ 


0H 


h 


Hi ': 








Hi i i ! 




: J : : 
: P: : 

: «>: : 








x : 
a: 

x: 








! P 














B. C. 13 
Ed. 10 
It. 8 
It. 9 
R. 15 
R 1fi 



W M 






toC m" 03 • p • fi? * M • p 



No. of Bal- 
lot. 



8 fe 


to to 


e st 


o 


& 


£ 


«i 


S & 


to & 


to 


» 


No. of Dio- 
ceses Rep- 
resented. 


s £ 


O tO 


«o w 


OS 


o 


o 


s 


S £ 


e & 


13 


* 


Ayes. 


to • 


to '• 


: M 


g 


to 


to 


CO 


to «c 


k. ~3 


-? 


~J 


Nays. 








- 


to 


Bi 


- 


W» «7« 


tn en 


to 


»- 


Divided. 


% 


01 


.** 


W 




j: 


© 


r 


No. of Bal- 
lot. 



Pr(B 
co^S 

g-pff? 
Bf*- 

Og;^ 

rtCD O 

£2£.B 



Q ^ 



Q F 



o F o p o 



o f 
3 3 



' to 
• OO 


ft 


-3 


to 


ss 


£ 


SS 


w 


to 

C5 


o 


to 

OS 


£ 


CO 

to 


to 


No. of Dio- 
ceses Rep- 
resented. 


co 


S3 


cs 


03 


§3 


© 


to 


en 


w 


g 


o 


- 


s 


!C 

cc 


Ayes. 


to 


-.1 


GO 


tf 


- 


- 


en 


CO 


- 


- 


cc 


to 


co 


-3 


Nays. 



CO -I 03 tt! 



toeoh-'coeococototo Divided. 



0\ 



288 Principles of Church Government. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING TABLES. 

" All comparisons are odious," at least to one of the 
parties, yet I cannot refrain from comments on the sig- 
nificant facts presented in the foregoing exhibits of work 
accomplished in the General Conference of 1876 as com- 
pared with the General Convention of 1877. Nothing 
could afford me more pleasure than to be able to do a dis- 
agreeable thing agreeably — to state an infelicitous thing 
felicitously — but I cannot. I might as well attempt to 
touch off a columbiad lightly. It cannot be done. 
This comparison is not in our favor. 

I find some relief, however, as I recollect the charac- 
teristic words of John Wesley: "Most reformers begin 
by denouncing others; we began by denouncing our- 
selves." A grander utterance never fell from the lips 
of man. 

1. Let us look at the comparative thoroughness with 
which the work of formulation was wrought in the 
standing committees respectively. It is worth while 
to remark that the General Convention was composed 
of about the same proportions of ministerial and lay 
members as our own General Conference, and by a 
strange coincidence handled the same number of re- 
ports. 

The number of subsidiary motions, especially of 



Remarks on the Foregoing Tables. 289 

amendments that were made by each house respectively 
in their further elaboration, will indicate the compara- 
tive thoroughness of formulation in the two bodies with 
a good degree of certainty, for, says Sir Charles Wag- 
ner, " When a bill is hastily brought in it generally re- 
quires mature deliberation and many amendments in its 
progress through the house, which always takes a great 
deal- of time. Whereas, when it is maturely considered 
and fully concerted before it is brought in, the first 
draft of the bill is generally so perfect that it requires 
but few amendments, and the rapidity of its progress 
always bears proportion to the maturity of its first 
concoction." * 

Now, as to the measures brought before the General 
Conference and the General Convention respectively, 
we have in Exhibit "No. 4 the following: "Motions to 
amend — General Conference 196 ; General Convention 
74," giving, according to the authority just quoted, 
strong evidence not in our favor. As the discussions 
recorded in the dailies show that most of these amend- 
ments were introduced during the discussion of the 
forty-eight reports of the standing committees acted 
on, it implies that some of the conditions of formula- 
tion by committees had been but poorly regarded. 
That the talent in the committees of the Conference 
was inferior to that of the committees of the General 
Convention we could not, of course, for an instant 
allow ; but this, we think, the reading of both journals 
will indicate with the clearness of a sunbeam — that 
the great difference in results is to be found in the fact 

* Con. Deb., xi, 116, 117. 
19 



290 Principles of Church Government. 

that the method of appointment in the one is more likely 
to adapt special talent to special services than in the 
other. The president of the General Convention, who 
from long service in it has knowledge of the capacities 
of different men for different departments of service, 
is enabled to put the right man in the right place. If 
a chairman of any one of the committees demonstrates 
especial talent for drafting reports in canonical form, 
and for conducting them on their passage through the 
house, he is made chairman of the Committee on Can- 
ons or Amendments to the Constitution and kept there. 
The first report of the Committee on Canons, introduced 
on the morning of the fourth day in the General Con- 
vention, and marked " C. 1 " (in Exhibit No. 5), men- 
tions the fact that the retiring chairman, Rev. W. C. 
Mead, D.D., had been a member of the House for forty- 
two years, a member of the Committee on Canons thirty 
years, and its chairman for twenty-four years, or eight 
consecutive sessions. He was probably an expert; and 
the presidents of the Convention knew it, and were 
sensible enough to set him at the work for which he 
was especially fitted, in which he could best serve the 
Church. Does any man believe that, if the General 
Convention returned only one fifth of all its previous 
members, and if the chairmanship was an elective office, 
a place of honor to be sought after, comparative stran- 
gers to such would return the same man, no matter 
what his special qualifications or the needs of the Church 
might be, to the same place for eight consecutive terms ? 
It is needless to say that the chances would be fearfully 
against him. The " Rotation Rapier," wielded skillfully 



Remarks ox the Foregoing Tables. 291 

by some aspirant for the honors of the place, would 
make very quick work with him. 

Does this language shock you ? Would to God that it 
were only a painting of the imagination! Do you say 
" impossible ? " Look at this in a paper entitled The 
Methodist, dated New York, April 24, 1880, on the 
first page; on the outside; it was intended to be seen! ! 
It was not on Christian Perfection, not on the Higher 
Life, not on " In honor preferring one another," not a 
prayer saying, "Lord, thou knowest the hearts of all 
men: show whether of these two Thou hast chosen that 
he may take part of this ministry and apostleship from 
which Judas by his transgression fell that he might go 
to his own place." No, but it is after the style of a 
whooping savage with dripping scalp and butcher 
knife uplifted. "As the General Conference draws 
near it becomes apparent that Dr. A. will be returned 
to his present position unless he is made Bishop or 
Missionary Secretary. Dr. B. has been beaten, proba- 
bly, so badly — " " Has been beaten ! " When ? Where? 
How ? — " has been beaten, probably, so badly that he 
will not have more than twenty-six of the eighty-five 
votes of the patronizing conferences. At the same 
time we may conjecture that Dr. B.'s public services 
are ending." Whose enemy hath done this ? 

Now, it is evident from this extract, and others we 
might give from the same issue, that somebody thinks 
that " pipe-laying," " log-rolling," and " wire-pulling " 
are possible in the General Conference. And if so 
much of it is possible in reference to the higher offices 
of the Church is it not also possible that these chairman- 



292 Principles of Church Government. 

ships may be sought by aspirants as stepping-stones to 
something higher? Will any one say, O, it is the 
American way of doing things, and that which is good 
enough ir the State is good enough in the Church ? We 
reply, first, that it is notorious that our very best men 
are rarely promoted in politics — that if one refuses to 
play into the hands of those who bend all things to 
success he is soon thrust " down and out ; " and, 
secondly, it is not " the American way of doing things " 
in the chief legislative bodies of the land. Gushing, in 
his work on parliamentary practice, page 90, says: 
" One single point of difference between the functions 
of the speaker of the House of Commons and the 
same office in our legislative assemblies will serve to 
explain the relative authority they possess. With us 
it is the almost invariable practice to confer upon the 
presiding officer the appointment of all committees. 
... In England committees are usually named in the 
first instance by the member who proposes the resolu- 
tion for their appointment, subject, of course, to the 
control of the house." 

These two methods of appointment are before you, 
side by side — the American method, which puts the 
appointment of these most important officers in the 
hands of those most competent and disinterested, and 
the other the method of ward caucuses, which open the 
door, at least, for the entrance of men whose chief 
recommendation is their ambition to occupy the chair. 
We submit that our Board of Bishops, whose business 
it is to study men, and whose general superintendency 
brings them in contact with the largest number of the 



Remarks on the Foregoing Tables. 293 

ablest minds of the Church, know best the men who 
shall meet its demands. They are manifestly in a posi- 
tion the farthest removed from the reach of partisan 
influence or passion, and the best qualified from their 
extensive knowledge and acknowledged disinterested- 
ness to make these appointments for the good of the 
Church alone. On the other hand, here is a practice 
which, at least, opens a door for the politicians of the 
Church, a standing temptation to pipe-laying, log-roll- 
ing, or wire-pulling. We .call upon this body to bolt 
the door upon this political spirit — a growing evil in our 
midst — and to make it fast with a seal as broad and 
emphatic as a unanimous vote, as " This kind goeth not 
out but by prayer and fasting." To every busy 
button-holer who says, "You go for my candidate and 
I will go for yours," let every delegate say, " Get 
thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me, for 
thou savorest not of the things that be of God, but 
those that be of men." "Resist the devil and he will 
flee from you." At the very opening of every session, 
let us send demagogy to its own place. Let us bury it 
in a pit that is bottomless. 

As to the importance of a very great reduction 
in the size, we think there is a good degree of unanim- 
ity. The members of a large committee stand in each 
other's way and tend to reduce the sense of responsi- 
bility. Pat a few men in the focal blaze of the world's 
thought and you wonderfully stimulate both their in- 
dustry and their fidelity; cloud that position with 
numbers and you remove that stimulus. The deprav- 
ity that inheres in masses of even good men finds ex- 



291 Principles of Church Government. 

pression in a singularly absurd and contradictory 
aphorism. Instead of saying, " What is every body's 
business is my business," depravity feels and acts on 
the proposition that what is every body's business is 
nobody's business. 

The wisdom of the General Convention is at no point 
more apparent than in the fact that, while the body 
numbers three hundred and eighty, or twenty-five more 
than our own, most of their standing committees num- 
ber only thirteen. Two members of the standing 
committees from each of the General Conference dis- 
tricts is the very highest number we should think of 
allowing. 

2. Freedom of discussion. By the light of our axioms 
let us interpret our tables under tliis head. 

What are the facts ? The number of words em- 
ployed in the debates of a session is one of the surest 
indexes at least of its freedom. Look at Exhibit No. 3. 
The debates of our last General Conference session, as 
published in the Daily Christian Advocate, exclusive 
of fraternal addresses, though continued twenty-seven 
days, number but 271,418 words, while those of the 
General Convention for twenty days only, as published 
in the Daily Churchman, exclusive of fraternal ad- 
dresses, number 500,395 words ; almost double the 
number of the Conference. See also Exhibit No. 5, 
giving the number of times some of the reports were 
discussed. 

On what conditions can this amazing difference in the 
result be accounted for? 

(1.) The first condition of freedom of debate was not 



Remarks on the Foregoing Tables. 295 

in their favor, for the size of the Convention (see Ex- 
hibit No. 2 — General Conference 335, General Conven- 
tion 380) exceeded that of the General Conference by 
twenty-five members. 

(2.) Its second condition, limiting speakers to fifteen 
minutes, the same as our own, was oftener suspended 
than any other rule, and unbounded liberty was ac- 
corded to some of the speakers, who, having some- 
thing special to say, occupied the floor for hours in 
succession, 

(3.) The previous question, that standing reproach of 
Methodist legislation, was not recognized by the rules 
of the Convention. The only approximation apparent 
was the fixing in only a few instances of a date in the 
future at which hour a vote should be taken, the de- 
bater meantime, of course, being allowed to continue. 

(4.) We come now to the fourth condition of freedom 
of debate, and one of the most important — an order of 
business which shall save the time that should be given 
to debate. When one reads in our Journal such sen- 
tences as the following, " After protracted discussion as 
to the best methods of organization of standing com- 
mittees the whole subject was laid on the table,"* we 
get a glimpse of the manner in which most valuable 
time is consumed, not in doing, but in simply getting 
ready to do; and if one will go carefully through the 
General Conference Journals and dailies, distinguishing 
between the motions to act, or such as relate to the 
temporary agencies, methods, and conveniences of the 
acting body itself, on the one hand, and motions to 
* General Conference Journal, p. 72. 



296 Principles of Church Government. 

enact, such as relate to permanent legislation for the 
whole Church, and note the vast excess of the former 
over the latter, he will no longer wonder that we have 
almost ceased to be a deliberative body; that we have 
so little time for discussion. 

In Exhibit 4 we find that, while in the General Conven- 
tion the motions to enact are almost double the number 
of those to act, in the General Conference the motions to 
act are more than double the motion to enact, as 375 to 182 
— more than two to one. The scaffolding twice the size 
of edifice in building ! Was that exhibit ever paralleled 
in ecclesiastical architecture elsewhere, or in other de- 
partments of human endeavor ? A railway engine that 
should require a tender for its fuel twice the size of its 
train would either be run through the land as a curiosity, 
or off the track at the first station. A drayman who 
should toggle his harness until it was twice the size and 
weight of an ordinary load would be m-rested for "cru- 
elty to animals." And the architect or master builder 
who would spend twice as much time, labor, and money 
on his scaffolding as on his building would be either 
sent to Bedlam as crazy or to General Conference as 
just the man ! In the General Convention we find the 
motions to act only about one half the number of the 
motions to enact — the house twice the size of the scaf- 
folding, as it should be. Is it any wonder that the one 
has ample time for discussion and that the other finds it 
convenient to "move the previous question" twenty- 
nine times in twenty-seven days ? 

A few facts in the General Convention readily ac- 
count for this amazing contrast, and show how time is 



Remarks on the Foregoing Tables. 297 

saved for the thorough discussion of every thing that 
comes before it : 

(1.) The rules of each session being binding on all 
subsequent sessions of the convention, each session is, 
of course, organized under law. The number and 
names of the standing committees are all ordered in 
the rules, and there is no need of wasting time by 
" motions to act." 

(2.) The standing committees cover nearly all the 
committee ground of the Convention — the Committee 
on Elections, for instance, charged with the admission 
of all new members to seats in the Convention, grant- 
ing leave of absence, etc., by a single report, which is 
accepted without action, disposes of a large list of mo- 
tions to act, and saves much time. 

(3.) The president, by appointing all committees and 
announcing all changes in committees, saves another 
large list of motions to act and much valuable time. 

3. The conditions of security of enactment, other 
things being equal, are (1) those parliamentary checks 
or brakes upon the hurry and heedlessness of business, 
such as the requisition of notice, permission to bring in, 
referring to committees, the writing of resolutions, the 
printing of reports, the ordering of a certain number of 
readings, the going into committee before the third 
reading; and (2) especially the degree of distinctive- 
ness and separation of the two concurring or disagree- 
ing houses. Singular as it may seem, the self-em- 
dency of this latter condition is questioned by some 
who admit the axiomatic character of the former ! ! 
What is the principle involved in the one-house check 



298 Principles of Church Government. 

that requires a reference to a committee of a subject 
introduced but this very principle of the concurrency 
of distinct and separate houses, at least in their frac- 
tional sphere ? Can any man question that the special 
value of a standing committee consists in the very fact 
that, as a committee, its sessions are both distinct and 
separate from those of the larger and concurrent body, 
or that this identical principle, at the very summit of 
one-house wisdom, finds its fullest expression and most 
powerful application for the security of enactment in 
the utterly distinct and perfectly separated action of two 
concurrent houses ? Are not two brakes better than 
one ? Can a weak one be more conducive to safety than 
a strong one ? 

As the intrinsic value of a check or brake in physics 
consists in the fact that its application involves the in- 
teraction of two distinct and separately projected forces, 
so it is axiomatically evident that legislative science 
never nails the brake to the periphery of the revolving 
legislative wheel, but posits it on a distinct and sepa- 
rate basis of action.* 

* This chapter is incomplete. It was evidently Dr. Perrine's last 
literary work, and was left by him in an unfinished condition. — 
Editor. 



Objections to the Two-House Principle. 299 



CHAPTER XX. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE TWO-HOUSE PRINCIPLE. 

" The two-house principle has been declared by the 
advocates of democratic unity to be an aristocratic in- 
stitution. This is an utter mistake. It is in reality a 
truly popular principle to insist on the protection of a 
legislature divided into two houses."* Daniel Webster 
shows that this is not a check upon the people, but 
upon the agents of the people, that they may be re- 
strained from oppressing the people by hasty, indis- 
creet, or unjust legislation.f 

When, in the last French constitutional assembly, 
Odillon Barrot urged with ability the adoption of two 
houses, Lamartine argued substantially that the great 
principle of unity (he meant centralization) required 
the establishment of one house, and that unless the 
legislature was vested in one house alone, "it would be 
too difficult to make it pass over from a simple legisla- 
ture to an assembly with dictatorial power." His 
words, literally translated, were as follows : "To such 
(domestic) dangers you must not think of opposing two 
or three powers. That which ought to oppose it is a 
direct dictatorship uniting within its hand all the 
powers of the State, etc." 

The two-house principle is the most insurmountable 

* Lieber, p. 194. f See Webster's Works, vol. i, p. 10. 



300 Principles of Church Government. 

bulwark against despotic power that political science 
has ever devised. Its practical effect on such rules of 
procedure as Lamartine proposed is like a giant pillar to 
the fabric of liberty. 

One house only belongs to centralization, and is in- 
compatible with a government of a co-operative or con- 
current character, which we hold to be the government 
of freedom. 

"The opposition," says Woolsey, "made to two 
chambers on the ground that it is not democratic de- 
serves no consideration." 

Another objection is that a people cannot have two 
wills at the same time on the same subject. Hence the 
legislative body which represents the people ought to 
be essentially one. One of the houses is, therefore, a clog 
on the otherwise free movement of the community. 

But the question in legislation is not so much what is 
but what ought to be the will of the people. What 
would it be if they were in the representatives' place, 
invested with the powers of investigating and decid- 
ing ! Still further, it is a harder problem to find out in 
strictness of speech what is the will of the people than 
it is to find out what measures are best for the common 
welfare. The opinion and will of any modern commu- 
nity changes with rapidity, so that a minority easily 
becomes a majority ; and this ever-changing will is 
more likely to find expression in two houses elected at 
different times and renewed in a different manner than 
could possibly be in one house alone. Woolsey, in his 
Political Science, says : "Both houses ought to repre- 
sent public wisdom and intelligence, and progress along 



Objections to the Two-House Principle. 301 

the lines of conservative principle. But if they were 
chosen at the same time and continued for the same 
time in office they would be of little use; indeed, they 
would be under the temptation to differ in order that 
it might be seen that they held independent opinions 
or possessed superior ability. The conservative and 
progressive tendencies ought not to belong respectively 
to different parts of the political machine ; both cham- 
bers should be progressive and both conservative, al- 
though if elected at different times they would have 
these two elements in differing proportion." — P. 311. 

"There are also excitements in one house which do 
not reach the other. Every public body is influenced 
by the bias and temper of particular members, and a 
house large enough to excite debaters into passion will 
be more liable to this flaw than one the composition of 
which does not disturb the calm that should belong to 
a deliberative body. I believe that the confidence given 
to the bicameral system in the United States rests very 
much on the feeling that two bodies somewhat dif- 
ferently constituted will originate more careful and 
better digested legislation than could be expected from 
one."* 

Again : " The true view of the two houses is, first, 
that by this means hasty legislation is prevented. Each 
house, knowing that the propositions which originate in 
it will be carefully scrutinized by the other, will be ren- 
dered more careful, more deliberate, more awake to 
objections. Even its own reputation is at stake before 
the public. (One house cannot be expected to have a 
* Vol. ii, p. 312. 



302 Principles of Church Government. 

tender regard for the good name of the other, but will 
be too ready to find fault with its conclusions.) Mr. 
Mill attaches little weight to this, for he says : ' It must 
be a very ill-constituted representative assembly in 
which the established forms of business do not require 
many more than two deliberations.' 

" 2. Another advantage of two chambers is that they 
lessen the evil effect produced on the minds of any 
holders of power when they have only themselves to 
consult. This consideration is urged by Mr. Mill, and 
I give it nearly in his language : ' It is important that 
no set of persons should be able even temporarily to 
make their sic volo prevail without asking any one else 
for his consent. A majority, . . . composed of the 
same persons habitually acting together, easily be- 
comes despotic and overbearing if released from the 
necessity of considering whether its acts will be con- 
curred in by another constitutional authority.' " 

Again, it is objected to the two-house principle that 
it will have a tendency to separate the laity and the 
ministry ; that it will be a bar to mutual sympathy. 

1. To this it will be easily said that the principle 
embodied in it is of too wide application. It lies with 
equal force against all licensing, all ordination, against 
every possible distinction between laity and ministry, 
and must be pronounced unscriptural, un-Methodistic, 
contrary to the established facts of experience, and 
therefore worthless as an objection. 

2. It is absurd that the best means for the protec- 
tion of mutual interests should be a bar to good feel- 
ing. The laity and the ministry, each at liberty in 



Objections to the Two-House Principle. 303 

a distinct and separate house, could act with greater 
freedom, and with far less of the feeling that, in 
given instances, the legislation is the result of class 
tendencies. The separate consideration of each other's 
well-considered measures would promote rather than 
retard the brotherly element. 



304 Principles of Church Government. 



CHAPTER XXI. 

PLAN FOR TWO HOUSES. 

The following plan was proposed by Dr. Perrine to 
the General Conference of 1880, May 13, and referred 
to the Committee on the Legislative Department of the 
Church: 

Whereas, " One of the first acts in the organization 
of the early Christian Church," says Rev. George R. 
Crooks, D.D., the most vigorous writer of the age on 
lay representation, " was the separation of the temporal 
concerns from the spiritual work ; " * and, 

Whereas, Dr. Coke, " the first Protestant bishop of 
the New World," the man who, under God, was ap- 
pointed to lay the structural foundation of American 
Episcopal Methodism, according to the Journal of the 
General Conference of 1804, "moved," under date of May 
11, "to divide the spiritual and temporal concerns of 
the Discipline " (p. 54), and again, under date of May 
22, " moved that the first division of the Discipline shall 
be entitled only * The Doctrines and Discipline of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church,'" — subjects which he most 
religiously believed were especially committed by the 
authority of the great Head of the Church to the super- 
vision of those who are called of God and freely elected 
to the divinely appointed office of pastoral elders — 
* See Acfes vi, and Methodist, May 1, 1875. 



Plan for Two Houses. 305 

" and the second division be entitled only * The Temporal 
Economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church ' " (p. 64), 
thus consistently opening a door through which the laity 
might some day enter the legislative councils of the 
Church in perfect harmony with the word of God, and 
in the light of the best accredited maxims of legislative 
science; and, 

Whereas, According to letters received since the last 
General Conference, bearing date of August 9, 24, and 
30, 1876, from the now lamented Dr. Lovick Pierce, of 
Georgia, in which he speaks of Bishop Asbury's two- 
house views as " the wonderful communication made to 
me sixty-five years ago," and of the equally wonderful 
fact " that I should have been spared so many years to 
declare this wonderful conception of the pioneer bishop 
of Episcopal Methodism at the only time when it has 
been called for by pending issues," it appears that 
" Bishop Asbury," so far from even outlining any thing 
that could bear the slightest semblance to the crudities 
of the present " plan," as some have affirmed, according 
to Dr. Pierce's recollection, "never said a word in refer- 
ence to a mixed-up General Conference of lay and cleri- 
cal delegates, all voting together as one simple mass; " 
that " Bishop Asbury's ideal was two houses " (Aug. 9) : 
"A house of representatives made up of laymen and local 
preachers," " in which branch of the General Conference 
every department in the Church (that is, the laity and 
local preachership) requiring special legislation should 
be represented; " " next, a senatorial house, made up ex- 
clusively of itinerant ministers," "his grand idea" being 

"that an itinerant ministry must, of course, demand 
20 



306 Principles of Church Government. 

and have special legislation;" that, "being in itself a 
grand specialty," " it could be a real itinerant ministry 
only when its legislation is for itself and by itself, or 
safely under its control ; " that " his safeguard for 
American Episcopal Methodism was the common sense 
of State legislation; that nothing could be law until 
both houses passed upon it" (August 24, 1876); and, 

Whereas, This " common sense of State legislation," 
which gives to the immediate representatives of the 
people the initiative in all money bills, and to the 
Senate certain special executive functions, if applied to 
Methodism, giving to the house of lay representatives 
the initiative in all measures relating to finance and 
other temporalities, and to the clerical senate the initia- 
tive in all measures relating to changes in the ritual and 
other spiritual concerns, would achieve not only the 
effective application of the division of labor principle, 
the most authoritative in civilization, and thus the 
highest degree of efficiency in ecclesiastical legislation 
yet attained by the Church, but, by giving to each of 
the determinate orders of the clergy an-l laity in the 
Church the distinctive functions and responsibilities 
enjoined of God and the fathers, would accomplish 
that most devoutly to be desired end, the absolute 
reconciliation of the now hostile and belligerent theories 
of the old and new Methodisms; and, 

Whereas, Ninety-five of the leaders of the last Gen- 
eral Conference, lacking only thirty-two of a majority, 
stood up not only in repudiation of the crudities of the 
present plan, but in favor of the original principles 
of Methodism, and of genuine progress along these con- 



Plan foe Two Houses. 307 

servative lines toward the goal of God's ideal in leg- 
islation; therefore, 

Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on 
the Legislative Department of the Church, to consider 
and report upon the propriety of changing Part II, 
chapter i, section 1, paragraphs 62, 63, and 64, of the 
Discipline so as to read as follows: 

PART II.— GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. 
Chaptee I. — The Confeeences. 

Section 1. — The General Conference. 

% 62. The General Conference shall consist of a cler- 
ical senate and a house of lay representatives. 

I. Clerical Senate. 

% 63. The clerical senate shall be composed of one 

delegate in elders' orders for every members of 

each Annual Conference, to be appointed either by 
seniority or choice, at the discretion of such Annual 
Conference. 

T 64. At all times when the clerical senate is met it 
shall take two thirds of the clerical delegates elect to 
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 

IT 65. One of the general superintendents shall pre- 
side in the clerical senate, but in case no general su- 
perintendent be present the clerical senate shall pro- 
ceed without debate to the election of a president pro 
tern. 

1" 66. The clerical senate shall have the initiative in 
all measures relating to the ritual and other spiritual 



308 Principles of Church Government. 

concerns of the Church, and in case of amendments 
arising thereto in the house of lay representatives the 
final determination thereof shall be with the clerical 
senate. 

II. House of Lay Representatives. 

T 67. The house of lay representatives shall be com- 
posed of one layman for every members of the 

Church within the bounds of his Annual Conference, 

and also for every additional thousand members; 

said lay representatives to be chosen by the lay stew- 
ards of the Annual Conferences on the day fixed for the 
election of delegates to the clerical senate, but by a 
separate vote, provided that the number of lay dele- 
gates to the house of representatives shall at least be 
equal to the number elected to the clerical senate, and 
that no layman shall be eligible for an election to the 
General Conference who shall be under twenty-five 
years of age, and who shall not have been a member 
of the Church for five consecutive years immediately 
preceding his election. 

1" 68. At all times when the house of lay representa- 
tives is met it shall require two thirds of all the lay 
representatives elect to constitute a quorum for the 
transaction of business. 

^f 69. The house of lay representatives shall choose 
its own president and other officers. 

1" 70. The house of lay representatives shall have 
the initiative in all measures of finance, and other 
temporalities of the Church, and in case of amendments 
arising thereto in the clerical senate the final deter- 



Plan for Two Houses. 309 

urination thereof shall be with the house of lay repre- 
sentatives. 

III. Concurrent Powers, etc. 

IT 71. These two distinct and separate houses shall 
have concurrent power, as above provided, to make 
all rules and regulations for our Church under the fol- 
lowing limitations and restrictions: (see Sec. 1, 2, 3, 4, 
5, and 6, Restrictive Rules.) 

If 72. Joint sessions of the two houses shall be held 
for the hearing of the quadrennial addresses of the 
bishops, for the reception of fraternal delegations, 
and for the election of all the officers of the Church 
elected by the General Conference; but no legislation 
shall be valid except it shall be the concurrent action 
of two distinct and separate houses. 

% 73. All elections of bishops, book agents, secre- 
taries, and editors of the Church shall be invariably 
by ballot. 

T" 74. Neither house, during the session of the Gen- 
eral Conference, shall adjourn for more than three days 
without consent of the other, nor to any other locality 
than that in which the General Conference shall be 
sitting. 

1" 75. The General Conference shall meet in the city 
of Philadelphia on the first Wednesday in May, 1884, 
and thenceforward in such place or places as shall be 
fixed upon from time to time by the General Confer- 
ence; but the general superintendents, or a majority of 
them, with the advice of two thirds of all the Annual 
Conferences, or, if there be no general superintendents, 
two thirds of all the Annual Conferences, shall have 



310 Principles of Church Government. 

power to call an extra session of the General Confer- 
ence at any time, all vacancies to be filled in the usual 
way. 

The Plan 
as modified by the committee, and recommended to 
the General Conference, May 24, 1880 : 

PART II.— GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. 
Chapter I. — The Conferences. 

Section 1. — The General Conference. 

% 62. The General Conference shall consist of two 
distinct, separate, and concurrent houses, to be called 
the house of ministerial delegates and the house of 
lay delegates. 

1" 63. The house of ministerial delegates shall con- 
sist of one delegate for every forty-five ministers of 
each Annual Conference, to be appointed either by 
seniority or choice, at the discretion of such Annual 
Conference, yet so that such representatives shall have 
traveled at least four full calendar years from the 
time that they were received on trial by an Annual 
Conference, and are in full connection at the time of 
holding the Conference. 

1" 64. The house of lay delegates shall consist of 
two laymen for each Annual Conference entitled to two 
or more ministerial delegates, and of one layman for 
each Annual Conference entitled to but one ministerial 
delegate, said delegates to be chosen by an electoral 
conference of laymen, which shall assemble for the 
purpose on the third day of the session of the Annual 



Plan foe Two Houses. 311 

Conference at the place of its meeting at its session 
immediately preceding the General Conference. 

T 65. The electoral conference shall be composed, 
etc. (same as in Discipline). 

1" 66. The General Conference shall meet, etc. (same 
as in Discipline). 

I" 67. Whenever the General Conference is con- 
vened each house shall be the judge of the election 
returns and qualifications of its own members, and a 
majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do busi- 
ness, but a less number may adjourn from day to day. 

1" 68. One of the bishops shall preside in the house 
of ministerial delegates, but in case no bishop be 
present the house shall proceed to choose from its own 
body, without debate, a president pro tempore. Said 
house shall also choose all its other officers. 

IT 69. The house of lay delegates shall elect from 
among its own members, without debate, the president 
thereof, and shall choose all its other officers. 

% 70. Each house shall have power to originate and 
propose acts for the concurrence of the other. 

T 71. Each house may determine the rules of its 
own proceedings, and shall keep and publish a Journal 
thereof; and the yeas and nays of the members of 
either house on any question shall be, at the desire of 
one fifth of those present, entered upon the Journal. 

1" 72. Neither house during the session of the Gen- 
eral Conference shall, without the consent of the other, 
adjourn for more than one day, nor to any other place 
than that in which the two houses shall be sitting. 

T 73. Joint sessions of the two houses shall be held 



312 Principles of Church Government. 

for the hearing of the quadrennial addresses of the 
bishops, the reception of fraternal delegates, and for 
the election of all the officers of the Church elected by 
the General Conference ; but no legislation shall be 
valid except it shall be the concurrent action of the 
two distinct and separate houses. 

•f 74. All elections of bishops, book agents, secretaries 
of church societies, and editors of our official papers and 
periodicals shall be invariably by ballot. 

1" 75. The General Conference shall have full powers 
to make rules and regulations for our Church under the 
following limitations and restrictions ; namely, (see 1, 2, 
3, 4, 5, and 6, Restrictive Rules, in Discipline, without 
change as now.) 

1" 76. Provided, nevertheless, that, upon the concurrent 
recommendation of three fourths of all the members of 
the several Annual Conferences succeeding who shall 
be present and vote on such recommendation, a majority 
of two thirds of each house comprising the General 
Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the 
above provisions excepting the first restriction. And 
also whenever such alteration or alterations shall have 
been recommended by two thirds of each house of which 
the General Conference is composed, so soon as three 
fourths of the members of all the Annual Conferences 
shall have concurred as aforesaid, such alteration or al- 
terations shall take effect. 



Two Houses — Date op Origin. 



313 



CHAPTER XXII. 



TWO HOUSES— DATE OF ORIGIN. 



Great Britain, before the time of 

P^dward III. 

United States of America. . 1*787 

Norway 1814 

Bavaria 1818 

Wiirtemberg 1819 

Hesse 1820 

Brazil 1824 

Bolivia 1826 

Belgium 1831 

Saxony 1831 

Uruguay 1831 

Chili 1833 

Hong Kong 1843 

ISqnador 1 843 

Baden 1848 

Italy 1848 

Netherlands 1848 

Liberia 1848 

Bremen 1849 

Denmark 1849 

Lubeek 1851 

Saxe-Coburg 1852 

Portugal 1852 

Argentine Republic 1853 

Victoria 1854 

Prussia 1854 

New South Wales 1855 

Servia 1856 



South Australia 1856 

Mexico 1857 

Nicaragua 1858 

Queensland 1859 

Guatemala 1859 

Hamburg 1860 

New Zealand 1862 

Colombia 1 863 

Greece 1864 

San Salvador 1864 

Venezuela 1864 

San Domingo 1 865 

Honduras 1865 

Sweden 1866 

Roumania 1866 

Egypt 1867 

Hungary 1867 

Austria 1867 

Hayti 1867 

Canada 1867 

Peru 1867 

Natal 1870 

Paraguay 1870 

Germany 1871 

Tasmania 1871 

Cape of Good Hope 1872 

Switzerland 1874 

France 1875 

Spain 1876 



THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 667 883 5 



